US FWS: Judge Doubts California Spotted Owl Protection Delay Justification

• A federal judge expressed skepticism about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget-related justification for a three-year delay in protecting the California spotted owl.
• The FWS cited prior court-ordered deadlines from a January 2025 settlement, which required findings for 76 other species, as the reason for resource limitations.
• The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the FWS in November 2025, argues the agency's budget issues are self-inflicted and that the owl faces imminent extinction.
• The FWS requested $7 million for listings in FY2026, which Congress doubled to $14 million, still less than the $22 million allocated in FY2025.
• The judge has taken the motion under submission, with a written order expected soon, potentially impacting how agencies justify delays in species protection.

Judge Lee pointedly asked, "So, too bad for the spotted owl because it was the last one to sue recently?" highlighting her skepticism about the agency's prioritization.

A federal judge recently expressed significant doubt regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) justification for delaying a final decision on whether to grant Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections to the California spotted owl. During a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee, a Joe Biden appointee, questioned whether the FWS's three-year postponement was genuinely due to financial constraints or other underlying factors. The judge pointedly asked, "So, too bad for the spotted owl because it was the last one to sue recently?" highlighting her skepticism about the agency's prioritization.

Lucas O’Brien, an attorney for the Department of Justice, contended that the FWS's limited resources were stretched thin by court-ordered deadlines stemming from a January 2025 settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). This settlement mandated the FWS to make findings for 76 other species, including the Arizona toad and Oregon vesper sparrow, before 2028. O'Brien asserted that these prior commitments prevented the FWS from completing other listing actions, stating, "It was delayed because the court-ordered deadlines prevented it from completing other listing actions," and that the California spotted owl's determination remained "in the queue." Judge Lee, however, pressed the FWS on why it continued to delay the determination, especially if it was aware of the impending litigation and the need to adjust for deadlines, emphasizing that her "obligations are bound to what the rules say and what the law requires."

The Center for Biological Diversity initiated a lawsuit against the FWS in November 2025 concerning the final determination for the California spotted owl. This action followed a prior settlement agreement between the CBD and the FWS, which stipulated that the CBD would refrain from suing the agency over missed ESA statutory deadlines for more than two species per fiscal year, and only if those species faced an imminent risk of extinction. The CBD argues that the FWS's delay in this instance is self-imposed and exacerbates the risk of the owl's extinction.

The California spotted owl, a raptor species, has been recognized as needing protection for over two decades. Its natural habitat, primarily old-growth forests in the Sierra Nevada, along with its small populations in Central and Southern California, are under severe threat from human encroachment and logging activities. O’Brien acknowledged that the threats to the California spotted owl were not in dispute, but maintained that the current litigation "usurped the service’s authority and delegation toward those with the greatest need." Andria So, an Earthjustice attorney representing the CBD, countered that the FWS's budget constraints are "self-inflicted," and that further delay would "reward the agency for a situation of its own making."

A key point of contention revolved around the FWS's budgetary requests and allocations. Andria So highlighted that the FWS had requested a mere $7 million for listings for fiscal year 2026, an amount Congress subsequently doubled. Despite this increase, the $14 million appropriated for 2026 is significantly less than the $22 million allocated for species listings in the previous fiscal year. So questioned why the FWS did not request a larger budget if it anticipated an increased workload due to court-ordered deadlines and the need for additional staff to manage proposed listings.

So further argued that the FWS is reportedly nearing completion of the owl's listing process, requiring minimal additional resources to address the 50 public comments received in 2023 and other routine finalization steps. She underscored the urgency of the situation, stating, "Time does matter here," and pointed out that the FWS's own proposed rule acknowledges the owl's risk of extinction. Judge Lee has taken the motion under submission and indicated that a written order will be issued in due course, leaving the fate of the California spotted owl's protection in the balance and signaling potential implications for how agencies justify delays in fulfilling their statutory duties.

Lawyers advising clients on environmental compliance or engaging in litigation under the Endangered Species Act should note the court's skepticism regarding agency budget constraints as a valid justification for delaying statutory duties. This case highlights the judicial scrutiny agencies face when citing resource limitations to defer species protection, potentially influencing future strategies for challenging or defending such delays.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News