Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-71_omjp.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 40 F. Supp. 3d 744
(ED La. 2014).  The court determined that Unit 1 satisfied 
the  statutory  definition  of  unoccupied  critical  habitat, 
which requires only that the Service deem the land “essen-
tial for the conservation [of] the species.”  Id., at 760. 

Weyerhaeuser also challenged the Service’s decision not 
to  exclude  Unit  1  from  the  dusky  gopher  frog’s  critical 
habitat, arguing that the Service had failed to adequately
weigh  the  benefits  of  designating  Unit  1  against  the  eco-
nomic impact.  In addition, Weyerhaeuser argued that the
Service  had  used  an  unreasonable  methodology  for  esti-
mating  economic  impact  and,  regardless  of  methodology, 
had  failed  to  consider  several  categories  of  costs.    Id., 
at  759.  The  court  approved  the  Service’s  methodology 
and  declined  to  consider  Weyerhaeuser’s  challenge  to 
the decision not to exclude.  See id., at 763–767, and n. 29. 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed.  827 F. 3d 452.  The Court of 
Appeals  rejected  the  suggestion  that  the  definition  of
critical  habitat  contains  any  “habitability  requirement.” 
Id.,  at  468.  The  court  also  concluded  that  the  Service’s 
decision  not  to  exclude  Unit  1  was  committed  to  agency
discretion by law and was therefore unreviewable.  Id., at 
473–475.  Judge  Owen  dissented.  She  wrote  that  Unit  1 
could not be “essential for the conservation of the species” 
because  it  lacked  the  open-canopy  forest  that  the  Service
itself  had  determined  was  “essential  to  the  conservation” 
of the frog.  Id., at 480–481. 

The  Fifth  Circuit  denied  rehearing  en  banc.    Markle 
Interests,  LLC  v.  United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  Serv., 
848  F.  3d  635  (2017).  Judge  Jones  dissented,  joined  by 
Judges  Jolly,  Smith,  Clement,  Owen,  and  Elrod.    They 
reasoned  that  critical  habitat  must  first  be  habitat,  and 
Unit  1  in  its  present  state  could  not  be  habitat  for  the 
dusky gopher frog.  Id., at 641.  The dissenting judges also 
concluded that the Service’s decision not to exclude Unit 1 
was  reviewable  for  abuse  of  discretion.  Id.,  at  654,  and