Just want to add some color to the legal position this case is in. It is a quite a bit more complicated than just being a "political" move, or an action that is "passed" or not.
The federal government delisted wolves across the United States in 2020 (Trump Administration). This was done for several reasons, including that when wolves were listed in the 1970s under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), they were listed as "threatened" in Minnesota, and "endangered" in the rest of the lower 48 (which doesn't make a whole lot of biological sense now with a huge population of Great Lakes wolves that are both threatened and endangered, along with other reasons); wolves in the lower 48 as a whole aren't likely a listable species under the ESA and probably need to be listed as distinct population segments if they are listed at all; and that wolves in the lower 48 are all interconnected with each other and wolves in Canada. Not to mention there are over 6,000 wolves in the lower 48.
Like always, this move was challenged by environmental groups but it was defended in the very beginning by the Biden administration. Now, they are likely defending it because 1) wolves are clearly recovered; 2) wolves are really listed incorrectly under the ESA; 3) if they didn't they would be sued by conservative states and hunting groups and would probably lose that case as well; and 4) they probably want to list wolves differently, i.e., listing certain populations (like wolves on the Pacific Coast, wolves in the North East, wolves in Colorado, etc.) as threatened/endangered and think these moves would be more legally defensible. The rule was challenged in the Northern District of California (i.e. San Francisco), which is obviously a smart legal move by the environmental groups. The district court judge ruled against the federal government, saying that the government made several analytical errors under the ESA (but said nothing about whether wolves should be listed or not, which is common in these sort of cases).
The case was then appealed to the 9th Circuit. Contrary to what most people think and say on hunting podcasts, (looking at you Newburg), this Circuit isn't as liberal as it used to be since many judges on the circuit were appointed by Trump, and the judges on the Circuit are almost evenly split liberal/conservative, although it still leans liberal. In any case, the Biden administration again decided to defend the delisting on appeal, which is especially notable as any case appealed to federal appellate court by the federal government requires approval by the higher-ups in the Department of Justice. A panel of 3 judges from the 9th Circuit will now hear the case, and then decide it in the next 1-2 years.
In short, not really a political decision, its now in the judges' hands, and while there has not been a great track record of cases like these being decided "well" by judges, I have significantly more hope here than in the past. It is a bit disappointing that several hunting podcasts and celebrities discuss cases like this, and other legal cases or actions by the federal administration, without really understanding what is going on. I have heard several podcasts essentially say this is a political move with nefarious motives, when really this is one of the few times we should support what the administration IS doing, since it is extremely rare that they make the right moves for wildlife, hunters, and the environment.
www.huffpost.com
