⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute over federal dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Salmon and steelhead must pass the dams and reservoirs on their migrations between spawning grounds and the Pacific Ocean. The same river system supplies electricity, irrigation water and routes for commercial vessels. How the dams release and hold water can affect all of those uses. The National Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups, joined by Oregon, challenged the government's twenty-twenty operating plan. The fisheries agency concluded that the plan was not likely to jeopardize protected species. The challengers say its analysis understates the harm. Negotiations paused the lawsuit, but it resumed after the federal government withdrew from a twenty-twenty-three agreement. The district judge then ordered temporary changes at eight dams, including more spill and limits on reservoir levels. Spill means releasing water through a spillway rather than through the power-producing turbines. It can provide a passage route for young fish traveling downstream. But the parties disagree over how much spill helps, its effects on adult fish moving upstream, and the risks to electricity supplies and navigation. This appeal concerns a preliminary injunction: protection while the lawsuit proceeds, not a final judgment resolving the case. Section seven of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize protected species. A biological opinion, often called a BiOp, is the consulting agency's assessment of those effects. Here the judges will examine whether the fisheries agency used a lawful analysis and how much deference its scientific judgments deserve. They must also decide whether the district court had authority to hear this challenge at all. Jacob Ecker will argue for the United States that the judge displaced the agencies' expertise and imposed harmful operating requirements. Amanda Goodin, for the challengers, will defend the temporary protections and contend that the agencies repeated legal errors already rejected in this litigation.

National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al. (No. 26-1899) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.