Gopher frog case to the Supreme Court
Four years ago, PLF filed suit in federal court on behalf of landowners, Markle Interests, LLC., whose property was designated “critical habitat” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under the Endangered Species Act, “critical habitat” includes only those areas “essential to the conservation of the species.” But in a bewildering display of creative rule-making, that is becoming all too common among federal bureaucrats, agency officials decided 1500 acres of private land should be set aside for the protection of the dusky gopher frog although the land is wholly unsuitable as habitat. It is unoccupied, inaccessible, and unusable by the gopher frog. By any definition, the land provides no benefit to the frog whatsoever. But this did not stop the Service from baldy declaring the preservation of the site outweighed the cost to the landowners of $34 million in lost revenue.
A Louisiana District Court judge was “troubled” by the agency decision to designate nonhabitat as “critical habitat,” and the drastic impact on the landowners, but felt “compelled” to rule for the government on such a technical matter. On appeal in the Fifth Circuit, two judges on a three-judge panel also deferred to the government without reconciling the decision with the language of the Act to limit “critical habitat” to essential areas. One judge issued a dissenting opinion recognizing that if the government could regulate uninhabitable areas as “critical habitat,” the agency could regulate any area in the country, without limit. The judge argued this defied both logic and the law.
We sought review of the panel decision by the entire Fifth Circuit court in an en banc rehearing, but yesterday the court denied our petition for review on an 8 to 6 vote. In an unusual dissent running to 34 pages, the 6 judges who favored review excoriated the court for allowing the panel decision to stand calling it, rather colorfully, an “execrable” misinterpretation of the statutory text and contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
These spirited dissents essentially make our case and provide a firm basis for pursuing review of the agency decision in the Supreme Court of the United States. Our petition for review in that court will be due in about 90 days. In the Fifth Circuit, we were supported by numerous States and industry parties and expect similar support in the High Court.
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
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›