Environmental litigants seem to be a favorite target these days of both Congressional hearings and criticism on this blog. So after reading (here) about a recent lawsuit that led to DE-listing of species, I decided to look into what these anti-environmental plaintiffs were trying to accomplish with it. What we have (here) is an exact mirror image of the litigation strategy to list species under ESA, and the same reason they won – failure to meet deadlines.
In this example, plaintiff’s reasons for de-listing have nothing to do with the species or restrictions resulting from the listing. The species will still be protected. As the other article says, the lawsuit was merely “symbolic.” Harassment maybe. Now wasn’t defending against it a good use of our tax dollars?
Just saying – it’s ok to talk about whether limiting litigation is a good idea, but let’s not suggest that judicial review inherently favors any particular position.