Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton

89 F. App'x 273
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 3, 2004
DocketNo. 03-5055
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 89 F. App'x 273 (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 89 F. App'x 273 (D.D.C. 2004).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties.

The appellants challenge both the injunctive and declaratory relief imposed by the district court. Because all parties now agree the district court should lift the § 7 injunction at issue and the district court has indicated it will do so, should this case be remanded, the appellants’ challenge to the injunction is moot. It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the § 7 injunction be vacated and that this case be remanded to the district court. See, e.g., Pharmachemie B.V. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 276 F.3d 627, 632 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (vacatur appropriate when claim is moot) (citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 & n. 2, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Columbian Rope Co. v. West, 142 F.3d 1313, 1317-18 & n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1998)).

Further, the district court on remand shall: (1) consider whether-in light of our vacatur of the § 7 injunction-maintenance of the declaratory judgment is justified, see Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (“facts bearing on the usefulness of the declaratory judgment remedy ... are peculiarly within the grasp” of district court); Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, Ltd., 59 F.3d 254, 255 (D.C.Cir.1995) (remanding for further explanation of district court’s decision to grant declaratory relief); and, if so (2) consider in the first instance the Government’s jurisdictional objection to the declaratory judgment, see Women’s Equity Action League v. Bell, 743 F.2d 42, 44 (D.C.Cir.1984) (noting this court’s “general practice [is] to allow full development and presentation in the district court of matters that surface initially on appeal”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Center for Biological Diversity v. Ashe
District of Columbia, 2020
Humane Society of the United States v. Salazar
76 F. Supp. 3d 69 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Salazar
898 F. Supp. 2d 191 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Wildearth Guardians v. Kempthorne
District of Columbia, 2010
Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton
411 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. New Mexico, 2005)
National Wildlife Federation v. Norton
386 F. Supp. 2d 553 (D. Vermont, 2005)
Sierra Club v. Bosworth
352 F. Supp. 2d 909 (D. Minnesota, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 F. App'x 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defenders-of-wildlife-v-norton-dcd-2004.