Gopher frog case gets a boost from the States
We have discussed here the “unprecedented and sweeping” decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in which a split three-judge panel held the Service could designate private property as “critical habitat” for protected species, even if the property does not and cannot be used to conserve the species. Like Alice in Wonderland, suddenly everything is upside down and non-habitat equals “critical habitat.”
This decision would allow the federal government to set aside any area in the country as a de facto wildlife preserve indefinitely in the unsupported hope that the area could someday become usable habitat for threatened or endangered species. This topsy-turvey view of the law is contrary to common sense and conflicts with statutory and constitutional law. The preservation of areas that are unsuitable as habitat provides no benefit to the species–in this case the dusky gopher frog–while undermining the landowner’s constitutionally protected property rights. To overturn this flawed decision, we filed a petition for rehearing by the entire appellate court. On Friday, 15 States filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. These States include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming. The States underscored the importance of the case nationally and argued the decision should be overturned by the full court because the Service violated the Endangered Species Act and abused its discretion. This filing is a welcome boost to our case and greatly increases the likelihood that the Fifth Circuit will grant our petition and rehear the case.
learn more about
Markle v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In 2012, government bureaucrats designated more than 1,500 acres of privately owned land in Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the federally-protected dusky gopher frog. Regardless of the fact the frog neither lives anywhere in the state nor could live there, the critical habitat designation makes the land off-limits for all of the property owners including Ed Poitevent and his business, Markle Interests, and the Weyerhaeuser Company. On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear a challenge to this blatant abuse of the Endangered Species Act. PLF represents the Poitevent family and related businesses, and will represent their interests before the Court.Read more
What to read next
In February, eight Black and Hispanic families filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Connecticut State Department of Education’s race-based enrollment quotas for Hartford’s magnet schools. This policy mandates that 25% of a … ›