Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
2018 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 586 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case. It dealt with the designation of 1544 acres of private land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana as "critical habitat" for the dusky gopher frog by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.[1][2] In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld the designation and sent the case back for further review.
Quick Facts Argued October 1, 2018 Decided November 27, 2018, Full case name ...
Argued October 1, 2018 Decided November 27, 2018 | |
---|---|
Full case name | Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. |
Docket no. | 17-71 |
Citations | 586 U.S. ___ (more) 139 S. Ct. 361; 202 L. Ed. 2d 269 |
Case history | |
Prior | Markle Interests, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 40 F. Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. La. 2014); affirmed, 827 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2016); rehearing denied, 848 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 924 (2018). |
Questions presented | |
Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review. | |
Holding | |
An area is eligible for designation as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 only if it is habitat for the listed species; and the decision by the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior not to exclude an area from critical habitat under 16 U. S. C. §1533(b)(2) is subject to judicial review. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch |
Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Close