San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water v. Pacific Coast Federation Etc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[FWS] complies with the best available science standard so long as it does not ignore available studies, even if it disagrees with or discredits them”
• stating that the best science requirement does not “require an agency to conduct new tests or make decisions on data that does not yet exist”
• recognizing limited exceptions for considering extra-record evidence; the party seeking to admit extra-record evidence bears the burden of demonstrating that a relevant exception applies
• finding the court abused its discretion by admitting declarations of experts and relying upon them to question the wisdom of the agency’s judgments
• “[R]eviewing courts may not look to [extra-record] evidence as a basis for questioning the agency’s scientific analyses or conclusions.”
• directing courts to “defer[] to the agency’s scientific conclusions when those conclusions are fairly traceable to the record”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).