Is the Fish and Wildlife Service's listing of the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species legally valid when faced with scientific, procedural, and constitutional challenges?

The Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species in 2000, following a lengthy process that began in 1993. The sturgeon's population had severely declined due to overfishing, dam construction, dredging, and water quality issues. The Service initially proposed listing the species in 1993, withdrew the proposal in 1994, and then proposed it again in 1999 before issuing the final rule in 2000.

The Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, representing various business interests, filed a lawsuit challenging the listing decision. The Coalition alleged procedural defects in the listing process, including the Service's failure to designate critical habitat concurrently with the endangered species designation. This legal action sought to overturn the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to list the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

The Coalition (plaintiff) initially filed suit against the Service under the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Coalition appealed this dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision.

Upon remand to the district court, the Service moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the Service's motion but ordered the Service to designate critical habitat for the sturgeon. The Coalition then appealed this judgment to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court stayed its order pending the appellate review.

(Carnes, J.)

Yes. The Fish and Wildlife Service's listing of the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species is legally valid when faced with scientific, procedural, and constitutional challenges. The Service properly considered the best available scientific data in classifying the Alabama sturgeon as a distinct species, relying on genetic, morphological, and other taxonomic evidence. This thorough evaluation of scientific information demonstrates compliance with the Endangered Species Act's requirement to use the best available data. The failure to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing decision does not invalidate the listing itself. Congress intended species protection through listing to proceed even if habitat determinations were delayed, recognizing the primacy of the listing process in achieving conservation goals. The application of the Endangered Species Act to the intrastate Alabama sturgeon falls within Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Protecting this species is part of a larger, valid regulation of economic activity that substantially relates to interstate commerce. The Endangered Species Act as a whole represents a comprehensive scheme for the conservation of threatened and endangered species, which has significant economic and commercial implications across state lines. This broader regulatory framework provides a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to justify federal action, even for a species with a limited geographic range. The decision to list the Alabama sturgeon thus withstands scrutiny on scientific, procedural, and constitutional grounds, affirming the Service's authority and the Act's validity in this context.