15 U.S.C. § 1533
Repealed. Pub. L. 111–358, title IV, § 407(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4004
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Carpenters Indus. Council v. Salazar, 734 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2010).
Carpenters Indus. Council v. Salazar, 734 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D.D.C. 2010). “The ESA defines critical habitat as: (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act [ 15 U.S.C. § 1533 ], on which are found those physical or biological features…”
Wildearth Guardians v. Kempthorne, 592 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2008). “7 (noting that “[i]n some situations not relevant to the instant motion, the ESA appears to create a non-discretionary duty for the Secretary to invoke his emergency rulemaking authority” and citing 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(3)(C)(iii)). The situation before the Court does not…”
Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 645 F. Supp. 2d 929 (D. Or. 2007). “Legal Standard Under 15 USC § 1533 (b)(1)(A), an agency must discharge its ESA duties, including listing determinations, “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available .”
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 164 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1998). “If the Secretary deems that a critical habitat is not determinable when a final rule regarding species status is issued, this section permits the Secretary to "extend the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) by not more than one additional year, but not later than the…”
Oceana, Inc. v. Pritzker, 125 F. Supp. 3d 232 (D.D.C. 2015). “…development of the BiOp, which must be made on the basis of "the best scientific and .commercial data available.” 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (a)(2),”
Aina Nui Corp. v. Jewell, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D. Haw. 2014). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(2). In short, critical habitat designation generally involves three steps: (1) identifying those areas occupied by the species that contain the features essential to the species’ survival, (2) determining if any areas unoccupied by the species are…”
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(6)(C) (emphasis added).”
Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 945 F. Supp. 1388 (D. Or. 1996). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(3)(A). Section 553 of the APA supplies rulemaking procedures.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 411 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D.N.M. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 1533 (a)(1)(D). FWS determined that the states of New Mexico and Colorado, as well as the Forest Service, have in place adequate regulatory mechanisms for the protection and enhancement of the RGCT populations and habitat.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kelly, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (D. Idaho 2015). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(2). The FWS has significant *1199 discretion in determining whether to exclude particular areas.”
Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon v. Bruce Babbitt, Sec'y of Interior, 30 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “Technically the restrictions were under § 4(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1533 (d), because the gnatcatcher is not an endangered but a “threatened” species.”
Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2008). “Because the Interior Department, of which the Fish and Wildlife Service is a part, has the statutory responsibility to designate and monitor threatened and endangered species, 15 U.S.C. § 1533 , this concurrence is entitled to considerable weight.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.