Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker, No. 14-35806 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe NMFS used climate projections to determine that the loss of sea ice over shallow waters in the Arctic would leave the Pacific bearded seal subspecies endangered by the year 2095. Plaintiffs filed separate suits challenging the NMFS's listing decision regarding the Okhotsk and Beringia distinct population segments (DPS) of the Pacific bearded seal subspecies under the Endangered Species Act's (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1540(g), citizen suit provision, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706. The district court denied relief with respect to the Okhotsk DPS for lack of Article III standing, but granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their challenge to NMFS’s decision to list the Beringia DPS as a threatened species. The district court vacated the Listing Rule. The court held that, in light of the robustness of NMFS’s rulemaking process, as well as the court's highly deferential standard of review, NMFS’s final rule listing the Beringia DPS as threatened was not arbitrary or capricious, and its listing decision was supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the court concluded that NMFS clearly fulfilled its procedural and substantive obligations under Section 4(i) of the ESA to provide Alaska with a written justification. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in their action challenging federal officials’ listing decision under the Endangered Species Act, concerning certain “sea ice seal” species; and held that the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) listing decision was reasonable. The NMFS concluded that the Okhotsk and Beringia distinct population segments of the Pacific bearded seal subspecies were likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. NMFS used climate projections to determine that the loss of sea ice over shallow waters in the Arctic would leave the Pacific bearded seal subspecies endangered by the year 2095. Plaintiffs filed lawsuits challenging the listing decision under the ESA’s citizen suit provision and the Administrative Procedure Act. The panel held that in light of the NMFS’s robust rulemaking process, and pursuant to a highly deferential standard of review, the NMFS’s final rule listing the Beringia distinct population segment as threatened was not arbitrary or capricious, and its listing was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the panel held that the NMFS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that the effects of global climate change on sea ice would endanger the Beringia distinct population segment in the foreseeable future. The ALASKA OIL & GAS ASS’N V. PRITZKER 5 panel further held that the administrative record demonstrated that NMFS provided a reasonable and evidence-based justification for its mid-century and end-of-century sea ice projections. The panel held that NMFS clearly fulfilled its procedural and substantive obligations under Section 4(i) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(i), to provide the State of Alaska with a written justification.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.