New Ruling On Endangered Species Lawsuits

The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that if no bull trout had been harmed in 40 years, it wasn't likely many would be harmed in the next 40 years.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has given an important victory to property owners in the west in a closely watched case that addresses how the Endangered Species Act can be used to issue injunctions. For the first time, the court ruled that environmental plaintiffs must present actual evidence that a species is likely to be harmed. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to environmentalists who were able to easily obtain injunctions against property owners on the strength of allegations of future harm, the plaintiffs must first prove their claims. The case in question was brought by Pacific Legal Foundation against Verl Jones, an Idaho rancher who was diverting water from Otter Creek for irrigation and as a consequence, killing off the bull trout. The District Court initially upheld the injunction which the Ninth Circuit just overturned. The case has been remanded to a lower court for trisal to consider the evidence, or lack of evidence, presented. The environmentalists will have to prove their case, not just allege it. Property owners in Idaho have been watching this case for years and are hoping this decision will bring an end to frivolous lawsuits and turn the tide in favor of reasonableness in environmental laws.