Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, et al. v. Burgum, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026)
The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute over the legal protections for Mexican wolves reintroduced into Arizona and New Mexico. The wolves were rescued from the brink of extinction through captive breeding, which supplied animals for releases beginning in 1998. A wild population grew, but its limited genetic diversity remains an important recovery concern. In 2022, the Fish and Wildlife Service revised its management rule while retaining the population's nonessential experimental status. Section ten jay of the Endangered Species Act lets the agency give reintroduced populations special management rules. Nonessential does not mean unimportant: the regulatory test asks whether losing the population would likely appreciably reduce the species' chances of survival in the wild. The label generally removes the usual formal consultation requirement for federal actions outside national parks and wildlife refuges. It also bars critical habitat designation, which identifies areas essential to conserving the species. Conservation groups challenged the rule, saying the agency had not properly assessed what losing the American wild population would mean for survival. In March 2025, the Arizona district court upheld the rule, accepting the agency's reasoning about restarting a population from captive wolves and considering wolves in Mexico. Conservation counsel will argue that the agency applied the wrong test and never properly compared survival with and without this wild population. Federal counsel will defend the agency's assessment, drawing on reintroduction experience, the captive programme, and Mexico's population. Arizona will also support the rule, emphasizing workable wolf management and the captive programme's genetic potential. This is not an attempt to remove the Mexican wolf's endangered listing; the dispute concerns the legal status of the reintroduced population.
Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, et al. v. Burgum, et al. (No. 25-3936) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026.
- 0:00Introduction
- 41:20Remand without vacatur