Palila v. Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (II)
639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1980)
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs' Attorneys:
  1. Palila (Psittirostra bailleui), an endangered species
  2. Sierra Club
  3. National Audubon Society
  4. Hawai‘i Audubon Society
  5. Alan C. Ziegler, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI
  1. Michael R. Sherwood, Sierra Legal Defense Fund, Inc., San Francisco, California
Defendants: Defendants Attorneys:
  1. Hawai‘i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources
  2. Susumu Ono, Chairman, Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources
  1. Edwin P. Watson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Opinion by: Skopil, Circuit Judge
Other Jurists: Court Below:
  • Fletcher
  • Pregerson
 United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i
Key laws involved:
  • The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et. seq.
Summary:
  1. Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of a summary judgment for Plaintiffs, and the court’s order to remove feral sheep and goats from the critical habitat of the endangered Palila. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the appropriateness of the summary judgment.
  2. The court of appeals addressed whether there was a dispute of material fact. It found that the only relevant questions were whether the Palila is an endangered species and, if so, whether Defendants’ actions constituted a “taking” as defined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There is no question that the Palila is an endangered species. As for the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs showed below that Defendants’ maintenance of the sheep and goats harmed the Palila by destroying its habitat, which, under the ESA, constitutes a taking.
  3. Furthermore, the court stated that Defendants did not rebut Plaintiffs’ argument that the complete eradication of the sheep and goats was necessary.
  4. The court of appeals concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. AFFIRMED.