Opinion ID: 779761
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Grant of Injunctive Relief to Appellants

Text: 48 The Service posits that the district court erred in its ruling that the court lacked discretion to refrain from granting injunctive relief. Although we review the district court's decision to grant a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion, Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.1998), we review the rulings of law relied upon by the district court in awarding injunctive relief de novo. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir.1996). 49 The APA provides the judicial standard of review in this case. Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Simpson Timber Co., 255 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2001). Under the APA, 10 a court may set aside an agency action if the court determines that action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law or without observance of procedure required by law. Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 50 As discussed above, Congress imposed a twelve-month deadline for final determinations under the ESA. Congress intended the petitioning process to interrupt [] the department's priority system by requiring immediate review. Norton, 254 F.3d at 840 (citation, internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The Service's failure to comply with the twelve-month deadline is not in accordance with the ESA, the governing law. 11 51 Appellees correctly assert that a statutory violation does not always lead to the automatic issuance of an injunction. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). However, a review of Supreme Court precedent reveals that, when federal statutes are violated, the test for determining if equitable relief is appropriate is whether an injunction is necessary to effectuate the congressional purpose behind the statute. See TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978). 52 In TVA, the Supreme Court examined a violation of Section 7 of the ESA and did not balance the equities. Id. at 193-95, 98 S.Ct. 2279. Instead, the Court ruled that effectuating Congress' clear intent required issuance of an injunction, regardless of the equities involved. Id. Similarly, in Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376, 1383 (9th Cir.1987), we noted: 53 In Congress's view, projects that jeopardized the continued existence of endangered species threatened incalculable harm: accordingly, it decided that the balance of hardships and the public interest tip heavily in favor of endangered species. We may not use equity's scales to strike a different balance. 54 Id. (citation omitted). 55 While neither this court nor the Supreme Court has yet ruled that an injunction must issue when the Service fails to comply with Section 4 of the ESA, as it has for violations of Section 7, Congress' purpose for passing the ESA applies to both provisions. Regardless of whether the Service failed to comply with Section 7 or Section 4 of the ESA: 56 Congress has established procedures to further its policy of protecting endangered species. The substantive and procedural provisions of the ESA are the means determined by Congress to assure adequate protection. Only by requiring substantial compliance with the act's procedures can we effectuate the intent of the legislature. 57 Id. at 1384. 58 In TVA, the Supreme Court held that the clear objectives and language of Congress in passing the ESA removed the traditional discretion of courts in balancing the equities before awarding injunctive relief. Congress has spoken in the plainest of words, making it abundantly clear that the balance [of equities] has been struck in favor of affording endangered species the highest of priorities. TVA, 437 U.S. at 194, 98 S.Ct. 2279. Subsequent Supreme Court cases reinforced the holding of TVA and solidified the rule that, in the context of the ESA, Congress [has] foreclosed the exercise of the usual discretion possessed by a court of equity. Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 313, 102 S.Ct. 1798; see also Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska., 480 U.S. 531, 543 n. 9, 544-45, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987).