State of Alaska v. Lubchenco
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.
The absence of an expected change is sometimes indistinguishable from the presence of an observed one. So when the best available science predicts that a recently enacted ban on subsistence hunting will reverse the abrupt depletion of a species, a decade without any noticeable recovery in the species’ population should raise a concern that the true cause of its decline has not been fully addressed. The species in this case — beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet — was nearly wiped out by a catastrophic spree of subsistence whaling between 1994…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Amer Bioscience Inc v. Thompson, Tommy G.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
- Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Douglas M. Costle, as Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
- City of Waukesha v. Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
- Occidental Engineering Company v. Immigration And Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Defenders of Wildlife v. JewellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the InteriorDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2018
- US Citrus Sci. Council v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Rocky Mountain Wild v. WalshDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2016