Case Explained: FRIENDS OF ANIMALS v. MARTHA WILLIAMS

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 The D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Friends of Animals, holding that Section 1533(e) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) does not authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to treat a species as endangered or threatened based on similarity of appearance if that species is already listed under the ESA. The Court applied de novo review to the statutory interpretation, concluding that the plain text of 16 U.S.C. § 1533(e) limits the Service’s authority to “unlisted” species. The opinion emphasized that the phrase “even though it is not listed pursuant to this section” functions as a necessary qualifier to the term “any species,” and the subsequent conditions in subsections (A) and (C), which explicitly refer to “unlisted species,” confirm Congress intended the provision to apply only to species not currently on the endangered or threatened lists. The Court rejected the argument that the word “any” grants broader authority, noting that reading the statute holistically renders the text consistent with contemporaneous regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 17.50(a) and legislative history. Furthermore, the Court held that statutory purpose cannot override clear statutory text, observing that the ESA already provides a mechanism under Section 1533(d) for the Service to extend endangered species protections to threatened species through specific regulations if deemed necessary for conservation. Consequently, the District Court’s finding that the Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to conduct a similarity of appearance analysis for the Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Southern Subspecies of the scarlet macaw—which was already listed as threatened—is vacated, leaving the Service’s interpretation that it lacks authority to uplist an already listed species via this provision in place. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.