WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, ET AL V. USFS, ET AL, No. 21-35936 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The United States Forest Service oversees livestock grazing in the Colville National Forest in Eastern Washington, but it does not regulate or participate in the killing of wolves by the Department. Environmental organizations concerned about the wolves sued the Forest Service, challenging its grazing decisions. They alleged that those decisions will lead to an increase in the number of wolf attacks on livestock, which in turn will cause the Department to kill more wolves. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel explained to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show it has suffered an injury in fact, the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Service did not dispute that Plaintiffs had a concrete interest in the welfare of gray wolves in the Colville National Forest. The key issues were whether any injury to the wolves would be caused by the allegedly unlawful conduct of the Service and whether a change in that conduct would redress that injury. Here, the claimed injury arose from the actions of a third party that is two steps removed from the Service. The Service does not kill wolves, nor does it regulate those that do. Rather, Plaintiffs object to grazing because it may lead to depredations, which may, in turn, lead the Department to consider and, in some cases, exercise its discretion to lethally remove wolves. Accordingly, the panel held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims against the Service.
Court Description: Standing / Environmental Law The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing of an action brought by three environmental organizations against the United States Forest Service, challenging livestock grazing decisions in the Colville National Forest in Eastern Washington.
Plaintiffs alleged that the grazing decisions would lead to an increase in the number of wolf attacks on livestock, which in turn would cause the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to kill more wolves. The Department is permitted under Washington law to “authorize the removal or killing of wildlife that is destroying or injuring property, or when it is necessary for wildlife management or research.” Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 17.12.240(1).
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show it has suffered an injury in fact, the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and it is likely that * The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Service did not dispute that plaintiffs had a concrete interest in the welfare of gray wolves in the Colville National Forest. The key issues were whether any injury to the wolves would be caused by allegedly unlawful conduct of the Service and whether a change in that conduct would redress that injury.
Here, the claimed injury arose from the actions of a third party that is two steps removed from the Service. The Service does not kill wolves, nor does it regulate those that do. It regulates livestock grazing, but plaintiffs do not object to grazing in itself. Rather, plaintiffs object to grazing because it may lead to depredations, which may in turn lead the Department to consider and in some cases exercise its discretion to lethally remove wolves.
Plaintiffs alleged that many of their injuries involved procedural rights, such as those created by the National Environmental Policy Act. The panel held that the causation and redressability requirements are relaxed for procedural claims in the sense that a plaintiff need not establish the likelihood that the agency would render a different decision after going through the proper procedural steps. But a plaintiff still must show a likelihood that the challenged action, if ultimately taken, would threaten a plaintiff’s interests. The panel held that plaintiffs had not shown that the Service exerted the requisite effect on the Department’s conduct. Because wolves in Eastern Washington are not federally protected, the Service has no authority to require the Department to do anything before it kills a wolf. Nor does the Service participate in lethal removals.
Accordingly, the panel held that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims against the Service. The lethal removal of wolves cannot be fairly traced to the Service’s livestock grazing decisions, and a remedy that required the Service to make different grazing decisions would not redress the harm.
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.