Narrative Opinion Summary
On June 30, 2016, a divided panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which designated land in St. Tammany Parish as "critical habitat" for the endangered dusky gopher frog under the Endangered Species Act (Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 827 F.3d 452, 5th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari and vacated this judgment on November 27, 2018 (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 139 S.Ct. 361, 202 L.Ed.2d 269, 2018). Following the Supreme Court's order, the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings, which may include determining whether to remand the case back to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Legal Issues Addressed
Endangered Species Act - Critical Habitat Designationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The legal principle of designating 'critical habitat' under the Endangered Species Act was upheld by the district court for land in St. Tammany Parish to protect the endangered dusky gopher frog.
Reasoning: On June 30, 2016, a divided panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which designated land in St. Tammany Parish as 'critical habitat' for the endangered dusky gopher frog under the Endangered Species Act.
Judicial Review - Supreme Court's Authority to Vacate Lower Court Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court exercised its authority to review and vacate the lower court's judgment concerning the critical habitat designation, indicating further proceedings were necessary.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari and vacated this judgment on November 27, 2018.
Remand for Further Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was remanded to the district court for additional proceedings, which might include deciding if the case should be sent back to the Fish and Wildlife Service for further action.
Reasoning: Following the Supreme Court's order, the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings, which may include determining whether to remand the case back to the Fish and Wildlife Service.