American Wildlands v. Kempthorne

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding district court properly declined to consider two post-decision letters from scientists claiming agency misinterpreted their data in declining to list a type of trout as endangered
• noting that arguments made for the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 24-1300 September Term, 2024 first time in a reply brief are forfeited
• explaining that the burden is on the movant to demonstrate that supplementation is warranted
• stating that issues not argued in the opening brief are forfeited on appeal
• reviewing courts must “avoid[ ] all temptation to direct the agency in a choice between rational alternatives”
• listing circumstances that would call for supplementing the record: “(1) The agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision; (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).