Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-71_omjp.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2018) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

“shall  designate  critical  habitat  . . .  after  taking  into
consideration the economic impact, the impact on na-
tional security, and any other relevant impact, of spec-
ifying  any  particular  area  as  critical  habitat.    The 
Secretary  may  exclude  any  area  from  critical  habitat 
if  he  determines  that  the  benefits  of  such  exclusion 
outweigh  the  benefits  of  specifying  such  area  . . .  un-
less  he  determines  . . .  that  the  failure  to  designate 
such  area  as  critical  habitat  will  result  in  the  extinc-
tion of the species concerned.”  16 U. S. C. §1533(b)(2). 

Although  the  text  meanders  a  bit,  we  recognized  in 
Bennett v.  Spear, 520  U. S. 154 (1997), that  the provision
describes  a  unified  process  for  weighing  the  impact  of 
designating an area as critical habitat.  The first sentence 
of Section 4(b)(2) imposes a “categorical requirement” that
the  Secretary  “tak[e]  into  consideration”  economic  and 
other impacts before such a designation.   Id., at 172 (em-
phasis  deleted).  The  second  sentence  authorizes  the  Sec-
retary to act on his consideration by providing that he may 
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that 
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designa-
tion.  The Service followed that procedure here (albeit in a
flawed  manner,  according  to  Weyerhaeuser).  It  commis-
sioned  a  report  to  estimate  the  costs  of  designating  the
proposed  critical  habitat,  concluded  that  those  costs  were
not  “disproportionate”  to  the  benefits  of  designation,  and 
“[c]onsequently”  declined  to  “exercis[e]  [its]  discretion  to 
exclude  any  areas  from  [the]  designation  of  critical  habi-
tat.”  App. 190. 

Bennett  explained  that  the  Secretary’s  “ultimate  deci-
sion” to designate or exclude, which he “arriv[es] at” after
considering economic and other impacts, is reviewable “for 
abuse  of  discretion.”    520  U. S.,  at  172.    The  Service  dis-
misses  that  language  as  a  “passing  reference  . . .  not  nec-
essarily  inconsistent  with  the  Service’s  understanding,”