Monday, September 01, 2025
62.0°F

Feds violated Endangered Species Act in denying gray wolf protections, court rules

by MADISON DAPCEVICH Mountain Journal
| August 8, 2025 7:00 AM

A federal court in Missoula has sided with a coalition of environmental groups to block a federal decision to remove Western gray wolves from protections warranted under the Endangered Species Act. 

In his Aug. 5 decision, Judge Donald Molloy wrote that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the act in its 2024 decision to remove federal protections from gray wolves. Now, the agency must reassess the canine’s status and administer a decision consistent with both the ESA and best available science. 

Earlier this year, conservation groups challenged the agency’s denial of their petitions to list a Western distinct population segment, or DPS, of gray wolves under the ESA. Alternatively, the Service could relist the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS, which Congress delisted in 2011.

In June, the groups argued in Missoula before a federal district court that the service violated the ESA by inadequately considering challenges facing gray wolf survival, further petitioning that the species receive federal protections in the Northern Rockies, Mountain Journal previously reported. Plaintiffs, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Animal Wellness Action, argued that Fish and Wildlife Service misapplied rules and did not accurately incorporate the best available science under law, citing concerns over the wolf’s historic range, population size, genetic diversity and ongoing human threats. 

“Wildlife management agencies are likely to find themselves in a Catch-22 as they cannot escape from mutually conflicting dependent conditions: if the federal government succeeds in restoring the gray wolf, leading to delisting, then the state agency will predate the wolf, leading to relisting, engendering a fruitless cycle of delisting and relisting,” Molloy wrote in his 105-page opinion. “Ultimately, management of Canis lupus must not be by a political yo-yo process. As the law intends, a science-based approach negates this management dilemma.” 

In particular, Molloy noted that FWS failed to consider the species’ historic range throughout the West, which once covered nearly two-thirds of the country and expanded across North America, from Alaska to Mexico. The agency also failed to evaluate threats to wolves on the West Coast, consider genetic threats from a small population, and arbitrarily relied on state governments to stop killing wolves at certain thresholds. The agency’s earlier decision also did not account for unlawful take. 

“The Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case,” Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, said in an Aug. 5 statement. “Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law. We hope this decision will encourage the Service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West.”

Following a February 2022 court order, gray wolves in the contiguous 48 states and Mexico were protected under the ESA — except for the Northern Rocky Mountain population found in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Last year, plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the Service’s determination that gray wolves in the Western U.S. no longer warranted federal ESA protections, prompting the species’ delisting.

Yesterday’s decision requires that FWS revisit its determination to consider threats to Western gray wolves in accordance with the ESA. 

“Today’s ruling represents a hopeful step towards giving wolves in the Northern Rockies the federal protections they so desperately need,” Patrick Kelly, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project, said in the statement. 

In an email to Mountain Journal, Vanessa Kauffman with FWS Public Affairs said the agency does “not comment on litigation.” 

The agency did not respond to follow-up questions requesting further information on next steps.