Bennett v. Spear

Background

Two Oregon irrigation districts and two ranch operators sued the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Interior Secretary after the Service issued a Biological Opinion about operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project. The opinion concluded long-term project operations were likely to jeopardize two endangered fish—the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker—and recommended minimum water levels for Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs. The petitioners alleged those recommendations would substantially reduce irrigation water and that the Service’s findings lacked supporting scientific or commercial data. The Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the project, was not named as a defendant.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the petitioners could sue under the ESA’s citizen-suit provision or the Administrative Procedure Act. It held that the ESA’s broad “any person” language prevents a narrow zone-of-interests bar to these plaintiffs, so their critical-habitat claim under the ESA’s §1533 could proceed under subsection (C). The Court explained that subsection (A) does not generally allow challenges to the Secretary’s administration of the statute. The Justices also found the petitioners met Article III standing and concluded the Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take Statement produces legal consequences, so §1536-related claims can be reviewed under the APA as final agency action.

Real world impact

The decision allows water users and other interested parties to challenge Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinions that affect their use of resources. It permits judicial review of a critical-habitat claim under the ESA and review of consultation-related agency action under the APA because a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take Statement can be final agency action. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings; this ruling allows review but is not a final merits judgment.