Circuit split · environmental law
Whether Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act itself authorizes and requires federal agencies to protect listed species from jeopardy caused by their own actions
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · August 22, 2005
“The reasoning of those opinions reflects an existing intercircuit conflict on the question before us, with two circuits reading section 7(a)(2) as we do and two concluding that section 7 does not itself authorize agencies to protect listed species even when it is their own action that is jeopardizing then.” — Split of authority
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Joined by · 8th Cir.Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator, EPA882 F.2d 1294
“A decade later, the Eighth Circuit echoed Conservation Law Foundation, writing that “[e]ven though a federal agency may be acting under a different statute, that agency must still comply with the [Endangered Species Act].” Defenders of Wildlife, 882 F.2d at 1299 ; John W.” — Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, acknowledging the split
- Joined by · 1st Cir.Conservation Law Found. v. Andrus623 F.2d 712
- On the other side · 5th Cir.Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA137 F.3d 291
- On the other side · D.C. Cir.Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maiwt. Trust v. FERC962 F.2d 27
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.