Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA
Citation: 47 ELR 20016
No. 14-16977, (9th Cir., 02/02/2017)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's dismissal of environmental groups' claims that EPA violated the ESA when it registered certain pesticide active ingredients and pesticide products without undertaking consultation with NMFS and FWS. The district court divided the environmental groups' 31 failure-to-consult claims centering on one pesticide active ingredient into four sub-claim categories, and dismissed all categories for various defects. The appellate court disagreed with the district court's determination that the claims in the fourth category, which claimed that reregistration of pesticides was agency action distinct from issuance of reregistration eligibility decisions that triggered the consultation, were barred by the collateral attack doctrine. The court determined that the doctrine was not implicated as the plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to support the claim, and are not obligated to remind EPA of its requirements at every stage of the reregistration process. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.