Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland

“An agency action is ‘final’ only if it both (1) ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,’ and (2) is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.’ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).”

Petitioner filed a proposal to amend the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Plan) adopted by Respondent pursuant to The Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposal petition was subsequently denied and Petitioner sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court granted summary judgement in favor of Respondent holding that the Plan was not a “rule” eligible for petition amendment under the APA. The Court held that even assuming the Plan was a “rule” for which Petitioner could propose an amendment, Respondent’s denial was not a “final agency action” which would provide jurisdiction for judicial review under the APA. “An agency action is ‘final’ only if it both (1) ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,’ and (2) is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow." Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997). The Court reasoned that even if the Plan met the first prong of the Bennett test, it did not meet the second because ESA recovery plans only outline measurable objectives, and do not impose any enforceable legal rights or obligations upon the Respondent or any third-party. AFFIRMED.