The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a coalition of agriculture groups intervention into a lawsuit that challenges the Trump administration’s delisting of the gray wolf.
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), American Sheep Industry Association (ASI), National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) intervened in the suit Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. in defense of the wolf’s delisting.
“Livestock producers are directly impacted by the species management decisions made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), especially when it comes to species with significant federal footprints,” said Kaitlynn Glover, executive director of PLC and NCBA Natural Resources, in a statement.
“The decision to allow the coalition to intervene in this case demonstrates what we have known all along: Livestock producers deserve to have their voice heard on delisting the gray wolf.”
The case in question was brought on by a group of conservation groups in July 2021, who argued USFWS’ decision to remove federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from the gray wolf violated the ESA and Administrative Procedure Act. The groups asked the court to issue an order declaring the delisting rule invalid, vacating the delisting rule and reinstating ESA protections for the gray wolf.
In the 9th Circuit Court’s decision, the court says the district court abused its discretion by denying permissive intervention to the groups. The 9th Circuit said the groups met the prerequisites for intervention, and no party has objected to intervention.
“The coalition’s specific interest in the litigation—ensuring the protection of livestock or compensating for its loss—differs significantly from the interests of the other parties, such as an interest in recreational hunting,” the decision read. “Additionally, specialized knowledge is relevant to assessing the effect of state-specific hunting or agricultural regulatory schemes.”
As such, the court concluded that the current parties in the lawsuit would not likely make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments, nor would they be capable and willing to make such arguments. Ultimately, the district court erred in concluding that the parties would represent the coalition’s interests adequately, the court ruled.
“Given that the district court now has issued final judgments on the merits, the coalition shall participate as intervenors in the currently pending related appeals … including by joining the mediation presently scheduled with our court’s mediation department in those appeals,” the decision read.
“ASI is pleased with this action to allow these agricultural organizations to actively participate and seek a positive legal decision that supports our farmers and ranchers,” said ASI Executive Director Peter Orwick in a statement.
AFBF concurred, with AFBF President Zippy Duvall stating, “With populations now thriving, management of the species should be the responsibility of the states, which can more effectively determine the most appropriate actions to manage gray wolf populations.”
In related news, the Center for Biological Diversity recently announced its intent to sue USFWS for its failure to develop a national wolf recovery plan.
“By not completing a national recovery plan, which it’s legally required to do, the agency has failed wolves and the millions of people who want these amazing animals to thrive across the country,” said Sophia Ressler, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement.
The group originally filed a petition in 2010 requesting a national recovery plan. USFWS denied the petition in 2018. The recent announcement challenges that denial, along with the “Service’s failure to complete the required five-year status review of the species in a timely manner.”
If the USFWS fails to take action by the end of October, the group will file a formal lawsuit. — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
