German Evangelical Church v. Schindler

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the ESA “use[s] language in a manner in some tension'with ordinary usage”
• faulting the Secretary for concluding that the availability of habitat on public lands alone renders lost habi- tat on private lands insignificant
• noting Congress’s desire to allow the Service “more flexibility in [its] approach to wildlife management”
• requiring only that the Secretary “explain [his] conclusion that the area in which [the lizard] can no lon- ger live is not a ‘significant portion of its range’ ”
• reversing summary judgment in favor of Service and remanding the Service’s decision because it failed to explain how a thirty-four percent reduction in a species’ historical range was not a significant portion of the flat-tail horned lizard’s range
• “She therefore assumes that a species is in danger of extinction in ‘a significant portion of its range’ only if it is in danger of extinction everywhere.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).