The Center for Biological Diversity and eighteen other nonprofit organizations (collectively the Center) sued the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), claiming that FWS's decision not to list the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)[1] was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, determining that FWS's decision not to list the goshawk was "amply supported by evidence in the record."[2]

The Center began petitioning FWS to list the goshawk as endangered in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona in July of 1991. That September, the Center requested to expand the scope of its petition from those four states to "the entire forested area of the United States west of the 100th meridian."[3] FWS responded to the Center's petition in June 1992 with a 90-day finding that the petition did not present evidence that the goshawk was a listable species under the ESA, or that the goshawk population west of the 100th meridian was distinct from the population east of the 100th meridian. The Center then filed an action against FWS in the District Court of Arizona in response to FWS's 90-day finding. The district court held that FWS did not have a clear definition of a distinct population and that FWS's finding on the Center's petition was arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded the case to FWS for a new finding. In this new 90-day finding, FWS again found that the Center did not present evidence that the listing of the goshawk was justified because the petition included more than one subspecies of goshawk and therefore "did not meet the definition of a distinct population eligible for listing under the ESA."[4] The Center filed another action against FWS as a result of this second negative finding. The district court again found that FWS was arbitrary and capricious in both rejecting the Center's petition before the Center could conform to the rule governing subspecies, and in enforcing the "only one subspecies" policy.[5] The court ordered FWS to promulgate a new 90-day finding.

FWS issued a third finding on September 29, 1997, stating that the Center presented sufficient evidence to show that the goshawk may be endangered or threatened west of the 100th meridian. FWS assembled a team of wildlife biologists with special expertise in goshawks to conduct a status review on the goshawk. After compiling data on goshawk locations and habitat, the status review team determined that the goshawk population was "relatively stable," despite the fact that goshawk habitat had declined since European settlement of the West.[6] The team had insufficient data to determine whether goshawk habitat was continuing this trend of decline.

Based on this status review, FWS published a finding on June 22, 1998, stating that its study showed that listing the goshawk as endangered or threatened was "not warranted."[7] The Center sued FWS, claiming that FWS's finding that listing the goshawk was "not warranted" was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted FWS's motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed FWS's decision not to list the goshawk under the Administrative Procedure Act.[8] The court relied on Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen[9] to determine whether FWS "considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" in making its decision.[10] In determining FWS's decision not to be arbitrary and capricious, the Ninth Circuit considered that FWS used information from a status review team with expertise in the area of goshawks, which conducted a comprehensive review of scientific data in the field. The court determined FWS's finding that the goshawk was not endangered or threatened was not arbitrary and capricious. Holding FWS's decision adequately supported by evidence, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of FWS.