Jun 72022

California Appeals Court Rules That State Endangered Species Act Protects All Invertebrates

Jagdeep Singh and Samuel B. Boxerman
, ,

On May 31, 2022, the California State Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District ruled that the California Endangered Species Act (State ESA or the Act) protects all invertebrates. Expanding on the 2007 decision in California Forestry Assn. v. California Fish & Game Commission, 156 Cal. App. 4th 1535, 1552, the court opined that the Act bestows the California Fish & Game Commission (Commission) with the authority to protect not just aquatic invertebrates but any invertebrates as endangered or threatened species. The opinion has garnered some interest because it finds that the Act deems any invertebrate as within the statutory definition of “fish.” In other words, invertebrates, not just aquatic but also terrestrial ones, are considered fish under the State ESA.

Upon appeal by the Commission and public interest groups, the court addressed the question of whether the Commission exceeded its authority when it designated four species of bumblebee — the Crotch bumblebee, the Franklin bumblebee, the Suckley cuckoo bumblebee, and the Western bumblebee — as within the Act’s definition of fish and listed them as candidate species under the Act. Looking for the legislative intent, the court found that the California legislature was aware at the time of the enactment of State ESA that the Commission was interpreting the term “fish,” in the statute, to include invertebrates, even the terrestrial ones. The court found that a subsequent state attorney general’s opinion to the contrary did not have sufficient persuasive value for, among other reasons, the opinion did not consider the relevant legislative history. The court also found case law and administrative construction subsequent to the enactment of the Act as less persuasive than the California Natural Resources Agency’s construction contemporaneous with the law’s enactment.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Jagdeep Singh

Samuel B. Boxerman

Washington, D.C.

sboxerman@sidley.com

You might also like
Fifth Circuit Limits EPA’s Attempts to Regulate PFAS Under Toxic Substances Control Act in Inhance Technologies v. EPA

On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) orders under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), holding that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority when it issued the orders in an attempt to regulate the manufacture of per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) by petitioner Inhance Technologies, LLC (Inhance). The Fifth Circuit’s decision comes after EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for Fiscal Years 2024 – 2027, which involve increased emphasis on addressing PFAS exposure and contamination through enforcement actions and potential additional regulations.

Federal Court Upholds U.S. Department of Labor ESG Rule

On September 21, 2023, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas rejected a challenge by 26 states and upheld the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rule that permits fiduciaries of plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to consider environmental, social, or governance (ESG) considerations under certain circumstances when making investment decisions. By upholding the rule, the court rejected the states’ contention that by allowing ESG considerations, financial interests would be subordinate to nonpecuniary interests. Stakeholders interested in ESG should continue to track this ruling, which may be appealed.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Federal District Courts’ Federal-Question Jurisdiction Over Federal Agencies’ Actions

On April 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court  in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission et al. unanimously held that federal district courts can hear constitutional challenges to an agency’s administrative enforcement powers without waiting for the outcome of administrative appeals to that action.