Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026)
The Ninth Circuit hears whether the Fish and Wildlife Service lawfully refused to restore federal protection to western gray wolves. Wolves had recovered after federal protection, and Congress removed protections from most Northern Rocky Mountain wolves in 2011. Many wolves outside the Northern Rockies already had federal protection; the petitions sought protection for the broader western population. In 2021, Idaho and Montana relaxed wolf-hunting rules, prompting conservation groups to request a new federal listing. The agency assessed western wolves as a distinct population segment, or D P S: a separate, biologically important population that can qualify for protection rather than the whole species. In February 2024, it found listing was not warranted, pointing to genetic connections and models showing wolves could withstand heavier killing. The groups sued in Montana, saying the agency failed to adequately assess small populations, state hunting policies, and areas where wolves had not fully returned. In August 2025, the district court set aside the refusal and sent the case back for new analysis, while leaving the agency's population-boundary decisions intact. The federal government and hunting organizations, including Sportsmen's Alliance, seek reversal. They will argue that the court disregarded scientific expertise and wrongly demanded recovery in unoccupied former habitat. Conservation groups will defend the order, arguing that the agency overlooked important evidence and risks outside the strongest populations. The Act defines an endangered species as one in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. So a large core population does not end the inquiry: the dispute is how to assess other important areas and their future threats.
Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, et al. (No. 25-5109) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026.
- 0:00Introduction
- 20:43Legal interpretation and precedent