Center for Biological Diversity v. Rumsfeld

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, by basing its no-jeopardy ruling on future 20 development of a long-term plan, the agency “admi[tted] that what is currently on the table 21 . . . is inadequate to support the FWS’s “no jeopardy” decision”
• explaining that a “laundry list of possible mitigation measures” is unenforceable
• finding biological opinion arbitrary and capricious where consulting agency’s no-jeopardy finding was “based entirely on the successful and prompt implementation of the [deficient mitigation measure]”
• mitigation measures “were critical to the ‘no jeopardy’ finding”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).