¹ Babcock, H.M., ‘The Sad Story of the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Reintroduction Program’ (2013) 24(1) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 25–62 Google Scholar, at 48; Epstein, Y., ‘Population-Based Species Management across Legal Boundaries: The Bern Convention, Habitats Directive, and the Gray Wolf in Scandinavia’ (2013) 25 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, pp. 549–587 Google Scholar, at 577.

² Williams, M., ‘Lessons from the Wolf Wars: Recovery v. Delisting under the Endangered Species Act’ (2015) 27(1) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 106–156 Google Scholar, at 131; Epstein, Y., ‘Favourable Conservation Status for Species: Examining the Habitats Directive’s Key Concept through a Case Study of the Swedish Wolf’ (2016) 28(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 221–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 223–5.

³ E.g., Fitzgerald, E.A., Wolves, Courts & Public Policy: The Children of the Night Return to the Northern Rocky Mountains (Lexington Books, 2015)Google Scholar; Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, Request for a Preliminary Ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, HFD:2017:182 (seeking answers to questions on when wolves may be hunted under the Habitats Directive, n. 5 below).

⁴ E.g., Sierra Club v. Clark, 577 F. Supp. 783, 786 (1984) (involving a request from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to allow a wolf hunting season with a bag limit of 50 wolves, which was rejected by federal officials); European Commission, Motiverat yttrande till föjld av landets underlåtenhet att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt artiklarna 12 och 16 i direktiv 92/43/EEG om bevarande av livsmiljöer samt vilda djur och växter (Reasoned Opinion pertaining to the Country’s Failure to Fulfil its Obligations according to Articles 12 and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora) in Infringement Proceeding 2010/4200 (2011) (criticizing Sweden’s policies on wolf hunting for violating EU law).

⁵ [1992] OJ L 206/7.

⁶ 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1973); Pub. L. 93-205 (28 Dec. 1973).

⁷ However, see Vogel, D., Toffel, M. & Post, D., ‘Environmental Federalism in the European Union and the United States’, in F. Wijen, K. Zoeteman & J. Pieters (eds), A Handbook of Globalisation and Environmental Policy: National Government Interventions in a Global Arena (Edward Elgar, 2012), pp. 321–361 Google Scholar. The proposition that the US maintains more centralized control than the EU has, counter-intuitively, been shown to be false in several areas of environmental law, in particular climate change and the regulation of waste packaging.

⁸ Ruhl, J.B., ‘The ESA’s Fall from Grace in the Supreme Court’ (2012) 36(2) Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 487–532 Google Scholar, at 496; Schwartz, M.W., ‘The Performance of the Endangered Species Act’ (2008) 39 Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, & Systematics, pp. 279–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Glitzenstein, E.R., ‘Citizen Suits’, in D. Baur & Wm R. Irvin (eds), Endangered Species Act: Law, Policy and Perspectives (American Bar Association, 2010), pp. 260–291 Google Scholar, at 276–7.

¹⁰ Faure, M.G. & Johnston, J.S., ‘The Law and Economics of Environmental Federalism: Europe and the United States Compared’ (2009) 27(3) Virginia Environmental Law Journal, pp. 205–274 Google Scholar, at 217.

¹¹ Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

¹² Kagan, R., Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law (Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 3, 11 Google Scholar.

¹³ Ibid., p. 9.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 3.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 19–25.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 27.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 9.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 218.

²⁰ Kelemen, R.D., Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union (Harvard University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Kelemen, R.D., The Rules of Federalism: Institutions and Regulatory Politics in the EU and Beyond (Harvard University Press, 2004), pp. 1, 23 Google Scholar.

²² Kelemen, n. 20 above, pp. 1–4, 8.

²³ Kelemen, n. 21 above, p. 52.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 53.

²⁵ Trouwborst, A., ‘Living with Success – and with Wolves: Addressing the Legal Issues Raised by the Unexpected Homecoming of a Controversial Carnivore’ (2014) 23(3) European Energy & Environmental Law Review, pp. 89–101 Google Scholar, at 90.

²⁶ E.g., Italy, France and the United Kingdom (UK): see Chichowski, R.A., The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ E.g., Case C-530/11, European Commission v. United Kingdom, EU:C:2014:67.

²⁸ 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1).

²⁹ Price v. United States, 174 U.S. 373, 375–76 (1899).

³⁰ Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (2013).

³¹ Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2011).

³² May, J.R., ‘Now More Than Ever: Trends in Environmental Citizen Suits at 30’ (2003) 33(9) Widener Law Review, pp. 1–48 Google Scholar, at 2.

³³ US Constitution, Amend. XI; Melious, J.O., ‘Enforcing the Endangered Species Act against the States’ (2001) 25(3) William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, pp. 605–674 Google Scholar, at 673.

³⁴ Melious, ibid.

³⁵ S. George & W.J. Snape III, ‘State Endangered Species Acts’, in Baur & Irvin, n. 9 above, pp. 344–59, at 351.

³⁶ [2006] OJ L 264/13.

³⁷ Schoukens, H., ‘Balancing On or Over the Edge of Non-Compliance’ (2016) 25(6) European Energy and Environmental Law Review, pp. 178–195 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Case C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie v. Slovak Republic [2011] ECR I-1285, EU:C:2011:125, para. 50.

³⁹ Cases C-404/12 and C-405/12, Council and Commission v. Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe [2015] EU:C:2015:5; Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P, Council, Parliament and Commission v. Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht [2015] EU:C:2015:4.

⁴⁰ Krämer, L.. ‘Access to Environmental Justice: The Double Standards of the ECJ’ (2017) 14(2) Journal of European Environmental & Planning Law, pp. 159–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Draft Findings and Recommendation of the Compliance Committee with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/32 (2017); Aarhus Convention Bureau, Draft Decision VI/8f concerning Compliance by the European Union with its Obligations under the Convention, ECE/MP.PP/2017/25 (2017).

⁴² 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(1).

⁴³ E.g., Case C-103/00, Commission v. Greece [2002] ECR I-04711, in which Greece prohibited disturbance to sea turtle habitat but did not adequately enforce its prohibitions.

⁴⁴ The enforcement of EU law in general is achieved largely through private litigation in the national courts: Blauberger, M. & Kelemen, R.D., ‘Can Courts Rescue National Democracy? Judicial Safeguards against Democratic Backsliding in the EU’ (2017) 24(3) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 321–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 326–7.

⁴⁵ 16 U.S.C. § 1540.

⁴⁶ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 561.

⁴⁸ Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-500 (18 Oct. 1972); 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.

⁴⁹ Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 180–83 (2000).

⁵⁰ Buzbee, W.W., ‘Expanding the Zone, Tilting the Field: Zone of Interests and Article III Standing Analysis after Bennett v. Spear’ (1997) 49(4) Administrative Law Review, pp. 763–824 Google Scholar, at 778–9.

⁵¹ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 152, 158–59 (1997).

⁵² Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, n. 49 above, p. 181.

⁵³ But see Sunstein, C.R., ‘Standing for Animals (with Notes on Animal Rights)’ (2000) 47(5) UCLA Law Review, pp. 1333–1368 Google Scholar, at 1342–52 (arguing that basing standing on human injury makes protection of some species more difficult).

⁵⁴ Humane Society v. Jewell, 76 F.Supp.3d 69, 105 (D.D.C., 2014). This case was partially overturned on other grounds in Humane Society v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir., 2017), discussed below.

⁵⁵ Humane Society v. Jewell, ibid., pp. 105–6.

⁵⁶ Ibid., p. 106.

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ J. Darpö, ‘Effective Justice? Synthesis Report of the Study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union’, European Commission, 2013-10-11/Final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/synthesis%20report%20on%20access%20to%20justice.pdf.

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 12.

⁶⁰ Schwerdtfeger, A., ‘Schutznormtheorie and Aarhus Convention: Consequences for the German Law’ (2007) 4(4) Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, pp. 270–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 276; Environmental Remedies Act (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz).

⁶¹ Darpö, n. 58 above, p. 13.

⁶² Art. 9 Aarhus Convention.

⁶³ Art. 2(5) Aarhus Convention.

⁶⁴ Case C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej Republiky, EU:C:2011:125.

⁶⁵ Ibid., para. 50.

⁶⁶ Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] C 326/391.

⁶⁷ Case C-243/15, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Obvodný úrad Trenčín, EU:C:2016:838.

⁶⁸ Darpö, J., ‘Biological Diversity in the Public Interest’, in Dahlberg, M. (ed.), De Lege (Iustus Förlag, 2009), pp. 201–236 Google Scholar, at 203.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 203.

⁷⁰ Reichel, J., ‘Judicial Control in a Globalised Legal Order: A One Way Track? An Analysis of the Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtan’ (2010) 3(2) Review of European Administrative Law, pp. 69–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 69.

⁷¹ Environmental Code (1998:808), Ch. 16, s. 13.

⁷² Reichel, n. 70 above, p. 70.

⁷³ Case C-263/08, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v. Stockholms Kommun [2009] EU:C:2009:631, para. 45.

⁷⁴ Epstein, Y. & Darpö, J., ‘The Wild Has No Words: Environmental NGOs Empowered to Speak for Protected Species as Swedish Courts Apply EU and International Environmental Law’ (2013) 10(3) Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, pp. 250–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 256.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 255.

⁷⁶ Jaktförordning [Hunting Regulation] (1987:905), s. 23(a) and (c).

⁷⁷ Ibid., s. 23(a).

⁷⁸ Ibid., s. 23(c).

⁷⁹ Epstein & Darpö, n. 74 above, p. 255.

⁸⁰ Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen v. Naturvårdsverket [Swedish Society for Nature Conservation v. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency], Cases 23206-11 & 21255-11, Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm [Stockholm Administrative Court] (2011).

⁸¹ J. Gustafsson, ‘The Kynna Wolf’, The Anthropocene: A History of the World, 24 Feb. 2015, available at: http://anthropocene.name/student-hub/artifacts/kynna_wolf.

⁸² Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen v. Naturvårdsverket [Swedish Society for Nature Conservation v. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency], Case 2687-12, Högsta Förvaltningsdomstol [Supreme Administrative Court] (2012).

⁸³ Cases 4390-12 & 4396-12, Kammarrätten i Stockholm [Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal] (2013).

⁸⁴ Darpö, J. & Epstein, Y., ‘Thrown to the Wolves: Sweden Once Again Flouts EU Standards on Species Protection and Access to Justice’ (2015) 1 Nordic Environmental Law Journal, pp. 7–20 Google Scholar, at 8–9.

⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 9.

⁸⁶ Ibid. In accordance with the EU legal doctrine of indirect effect, broad and opaque national provisions should be interpreted harmoniously with corresponding EU legal provisions to the fullest extent possible, but national courts cannot be expected to effectively change the content of a national provision that explicitly contravenes EU law: see D. Chalmers, G. Davies & G. Monti, European Union Law, 3^rd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 316–25.

⁸⁷ Ref. 79, Högsta Förvaltningsdomstol [Supreme Administrative Court] (2015).

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ Ibid.

⁹⁰ Swedish National Veterinary Institute, ‘Licensjakt varg 2016’ [‘Licensed Hunting of Wolves 2016’], 12 Feb. 2016, available at: http://www.sva.se/djurhalsa/vilda-djur/stora-rovdjur/licensjakt-pa-varg/vargjakt-2016 (in Swedish).

⁹¹ Länsstyrelsen i Värmlands län v. Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen [Värmlands County Board v. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation], Cases 2406-2408-16 and 2628-2630-16 (2016).

⁹² Ref. 89, Högsta Förvaltningsdomstol [Supreme Administrative Court] (2016).

⁹³ Swedish National Veterinary Institute, ‘Licensjakt på varg 2018’ [‘Licensed Hunting of Wolves 2018’], available at: http://www.sva.se/djurhalsa/vilda-djur/stora-rovdjur/licensjakt-pa-varg/licensjakt-pa-varg-2018 (in Swedish).

⁹⁴ Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P, Council, Parliament and Commission v. Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht, n. 39 above; Cases C-404 and 405/12, Council and Commission v. Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe, n. 39 above.

⁹⁵ 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(a).

⁹⁶ 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(c); Glitzenstein, n. 9 above, p. 261.

⁹⁷ Art. 2(1) Habitats Directive.

⁹⁸ 16 U.S.C § 1531(b).

⁹⁹ Art. 2(2) Habitats Directive.

¹⁰⁰ Goble, D.D., ‘The Endangered Species Act: What We Talk About When We Talk About Recovery’ (2009) 49(1) Natural Resources Journal, pp. 1–44 Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Epstein, n. 2 above; Williams, n. 2 above.

¹⁰² Epstein, n. 2 above; Williams, n. 2 above.

¹⁰³ 16 U.S.C § 1532(3). In other words, no longer endangered or threatened according the criteria set out in 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1).

¹⁰⁴ Goble, n. 100 above, p. 3.

¹⁰⁵ 16 U.S.C. § 1532(15).

¹⁰⁶ 16 U.S.C. § 1535.

¹⁰⁷ D.C. Baur & Wm R. Irvin, ‘Overview’, in Baur & Irvin, n. 9 above, pp. 1–7.

¹⁰⁸ 16 U.S.C. § 1533.

¹⁰⁹ Goble, n. 100 above; Bruskotter, J.T. et al., ‘Removing Protections for Wolves and the Future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973)’ (2013) 7(4) Conservation Letters, pp. 401–407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 402–3.

¹¹⁰ Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

¹¹¹ Humane Society v. Jewell, n. 54 above, citing Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626.

¹¹² E.g., Williams, n. 2 above, pp. 147–8; Fitzgerald, n. 3 above, pp. 86–95.

¹¹³ 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).

¹¹⁴ Policy regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act, 61 Fed. Reg. 4722, 4722 (7 Feb. 1996).

¹¹⁵ Fitzgerald, n. 3 above, pp. 86–100.

¹¹⁶ Humane Society v. Zinke, n. 54 above; Humane Society v. Jewell, n. 54 above, p. 100.

¹¹⁷ Humane Society v. Jewell, n. 54 above, p. 110.

¹¹⁸ Humane Societyv. Zinke, n. 54 above, p. 600.

¹¹⁹ Art. 2(1) Habitats Directive.

¹²⁰ Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L. & Linnell, J.D.C., ‘Interpreting “Favourable Conservation Status” for Large Carnivores in Europe: How Many are Needed and How Many are Wanted?’ (2017) 26(1) Biodiversity and Conservation, pp. 37–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²¹ European Commission, Additional Reasoned Opinion in Infringement Proceeding 2010/4200 (Swedish), 19 June 2015, pp. 10–2; see, e.g., Överklagande av Länsstyrelsens i Gävleborgs län beslut om utökad tilldelning för licensjakt efter varg i Gävleborgs län 2016, länsstyrelsens dnr 218-743-16 [Appeal of the County Board in Gävleborg County’s Decision on Increased Bag Limit for the Licensed Wolf Hunt in Gävleborg County 2016], 4 Feb. 2016, p. 2 (in Swedish) (describing the appellant’s argument that wolves had not reached favourable conservation status), available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsinformation/beslut/varg/2016-overprov-licens/beslut-inhibition-licenssjakt-gavleborg-20160204.pdf.

¹²² European Commission, n. 4 above, p. 8.

¹²³ Epstein & Darpö, n. 74 above, p. 252.

¹²⁴ Darpö & Epstein, n. 84 above, p. 11.

¹²⁵ A.J. McConville & G.M. Tucker, ‘Review of Favourable Conservation Status and Birds Directive: Article 2 Interpretation within the European Union’, Natural England Commissioned Reports, NECR176, 17 Mar. 2015, p. 97; ‘En hållbar rovdjurspolitik: Regeringens proposition’ [‘A Sustainable Carnivore Policy: Government’s Proposition’] 2012/13:191 (2013), p. 36.

¹²⁶ En hållbar rovdjurspolitik: Regeringens proposition, ibid., p. 36.

¹²⁷ European Commission, n. 121 above, pp. 11–2.

¹²⁸ Ibid., p. 12.

¹²⁹ Länsstyrelsen i Värmlands län v. Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen, n. 91 above.

¹³⁰ Ibid., p. 49.

¹³¹ Darpö, J., ‘The Commission: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing? On Infringement Proceedings as a Legal Device for the Enforcement of EU Law on the Environment, Using Swedish Wolf Management as an Example’ (2016) 13(3–4) Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, pp. 270–293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³² 16 U.S. Code § 1533 (c).

¹³³ US Fish and Wildlife Service, Delisting Report, available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/delisting-report.

¹³⁴ Scott, J.M. et al., ‘Recovery of Imperiled Species under the ESA: The Need for a New Approach’ (2005) 3(7) Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, pp. 383–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ Art. 19 Habitats Directive.

¹³⁶ European Commission, Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Feb. 2007, pp. 14–5, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/guidance/pdf/guidance_en.pdf .

¹³⁷ 16 U.S.C. § 1533; Art. 19 Habitats Directive.

¹³⁸ 16 U.S.C. § 1533.

¹³⁹ 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2)(A).

¹⁴⁰ J.B. Ruhl, ‘Listing Endangered and Threatened Species’, in Baur & Irvin, n. 9 above, pp. 16–39, at 27.

¹⁴¹ Environmental Conservation Online System, ‘U.S. Federal and Endangered and Threatened Species by Calendar Year’, available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listings-count-by-year-report.

¹⁴² 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A).

¹⁴³ 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(a).

¹⁴⁴ Olson, E.R. et al., ‘Pendulum Swings in Wolf Management Led to Conflict, Illegal Kills, and a Legislated Wolf Hunt’ (2015) 8(5) Conservation Letters, pp. 351–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 352.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid.

¹⁴⁶ Proposal to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portion of the Coterminous United States; Proposal to Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 65 Fed. Reg. 43450 (12 July 2000).

¹⁴⁷ E.g., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, ‘Minnesota Wolf Management Plan’, Feb. 2001, available at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/stateplans/pdf/mn-wolf-plan-01.pdf.

¹⁴⁸ Final Rule to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 68 Fed. Reg. 15804 (1 Apr. 2003).

¹⁴⁹ Defenders of Wildlife v. US Department of the Interior, 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D.Or., 2005); National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D.Vt., 2005).

¹⁵⁰ Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 74 Fed. Reg. 15123 (2 Apr. 2009).

¹⁵¹ Williams, n. 2 above, pp. 138–9.

¹⁵² Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, ‘The 2009 Montana Wolf Hunting Season’, 29 Dec. 2009, available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=41454; Idaho Fish and Game, ‘Wolf Management/Status Timeline’, available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161.

¹⁵³ Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D.Mont., 2010).

¹⁵⁴ Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10, s. 1713, 125 Stat. 38 (2011).

¹⁵⁵ Perry, S., ‘The Gray Wolf Delisting Rider and State Management under the Endangered Species Act’ (2012) 39(2) Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 439–473 Google Scholar, at 452.

¹⁵⁶ Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, n. 154 above. The provision was upheld in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672 F.3d 1170 (9^th Cir., 2012).

¹⁵⁷ P. Taylor, ‘Wolf Delisting Survives Budget Fight as Settlement Crumbles’, The New York Times, 11 Apr. 2011, available at: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/11/11greenwire-wolf-delisting-survives-budget-fight-as-settle-61474.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print.

¹⁵⁸ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population’s Status as an Experimental Population, 77 Fed. Reg. 55530 (10 Sept. 2012).

¹⁵⁹ Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 68 F.Supp.3d 193 (D.D.C., 2014).

¹⁶⁰ Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, No. 14-5300 (DC.Cir., 2017).

¹⁶¹ Perry, n. 155 above.

¹⁶² J. Hayden, ‘2015 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Progress Report’, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Mar. 2016, available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/idaho-wolf-monitoring-progress-report-2015.pdf.

¹⁶³ Olson et al., n. 144 above, p. 352.

¹⁶⁴ Art. 19 Habitats Directive.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶⁶ Hochkirch, A. et al., ‘Europe Needs a New Vision for a Natura 2020 Network’ (2013) 6(6) Conservation Letters, pp. 462–467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 463; Pillai, A. & Heptinstall, D., ‘Twenty Years of the Habitats Directive: A Case Study on Species Reintroduction, Protection and Management’ (2013) 15(1) Environmental Law Review, pp. 27–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 42–3; Cardoso, P., ‘Habitats Directive Species Lists: Urgent Need of Revision’ (2011) 5 Insect Conservation & Diversity, pp. 169–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶⁷ European Commission, ‘Enlargement and Nature Law’, 6 Oct. 2016, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/enlargement/index_en.htm.

¹⁶⁸ Environmental Conservation Online System, n. 141 above.

¹⁶⁹ Environmental Conservation Online System, ‘Delisted Species’, available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/delistingReport.jsp.

¹⁷⁰ Greenwald, D.N., Suckling, K.F. & Taylor, M., ‘The Listing Record’, in D.D. Goble, J.M. Scott & F.W. Davis (eds), The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Vol. 1 – Renewing the Conservation Promise (Island Press, 2006), pp. 51–67 Google Scholar; M. Wines, ‘Endangered or Not, but at Least No Longer Waiting’, The New York Times, 6 Mar. 2013, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/science/earth/long-delayed-rulings-on-endangered-species-are-coming.html (noting several species had been candidates for protection for 20 to nearly 40 years).

¹⁷¹ J.B.C. Harris et al., ‘Conserving Imperiled Species: A Comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered Species Act’ (2012) 5(1) Conservation Letters, pp. 64–72, at 65; Wines, n. 170 above.

¹⁷² Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Coterminous United States; Proposal to Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 65 Fed. Reg. 43457 (13 July 2000); Perry, n. 155 above, pp. 449–50.

¹⁷³ Baier, L.E., Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act (Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), pp. 178 Google Scholar, 277–8.

¹⁷⁴ Kagan, n. 12, pp. 207–28.

¹⁷⁵ Nathanson, K., Lundquist, T.R. & Bordelon, S., ‘Developments in ESA Citizen Suits and Citizen Enforcement of Wildlife Laws’ (2015) 29(3) Natural Resources & Environment, pp. 15–18 Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁶ Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, n. 154 above.

¹⁷⁷ Bray, Z., ‘The Hidden Rise of “Efficient” (De)listing’ (2014) 73(2) Maryland Law Review, pp. 389–457 Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁸ Verschuuren, J., ‘Effectiveness of Nature Protection Legislation in the European Union and the United States: The Habitats Directive and the Endangered Species Act’, in M. Dieterich & J. van der Straaten (eds), Cultural Landscapes and Land Use: The Nature Conservation: Society Interface (Springer, 2004), pp. 39–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 65.

¹⁷⁹ Kelemen, n. 20 above, p. 24.

¹⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 92.

¹⁸¹ Ruhl, J.B., ‘Cooperative Federalism and the Endangered Species Act: A Comparative Assessment and Call for Change’, in K. Arha & B.H. Thompson, Jr. (eds), The Endangered Species Act and Federalism: Effective Conservation through Greater State Commitment (RFF Press, 2011), pp. 35–54 Google Scholar.

¹⁸² Ibid., pp. 44–5.

¹⁸³ Ibid., p. 45.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid., pp. 45–6.

¹⁸⁵ Hilson, C., ‘The Impact of Brexit on the Environment: Exploring the Dynamics of a Complex Relationship’ (2018) 7(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 89–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 96, 102–3 (in which Hilson argues that while immediate large-scale post-Brexit change in environmental policy is unlikely, the loss of EU enforcement and accountability mechanisms may lead to a reduction in environmental protection).

¹⁸⁶ Art. 1, Treaty on European Union (TEU), Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009 [2010] OJ C 83/13, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT.

¹⁸⁷ V. Gravey, Does the European Union Have a Reverse Gear? Environmental Policy Dismantling: 1992–2014 (PhD dissertation, University of East Anglia, 2016), available at: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/59419; Gravey, V. & Jordan, A., ‘Does the European Union Have a Reverse Gear? Policy Dismantling in a Hyperconsensual Polity’ (2016) 23(8) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 1180–1198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸⁸ Trouwborst, A. et al., ‘Europe’s Biodiversity Avoids Fatal Setback’ (2017) 355(6321) Science, p. 140 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

¹⁸⁹ Darpö, n. 131 above.

¹⁹⁰ A. Hofmann, ‘Left to Interest Groups? On the Prospects for Enforcing Environmental Law in the European Union’, conference paper, ‘The Future of Environmental Policy in the European Union’ workshop, 19–20 Jan. 2017, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312951147_Left_to_interest_groups_On_the_prospects_for_enforcing_environmental_law_in_the_European_Union.

¹⁹¹ C. Hilson, ‘The Visibility of Environmental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Eurolegalism in Action?’ (2018, forthcoming) Journal of European Public Policy, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1329335.

¹⁹² Ibid., p. 16.

¹⁹³ Ibid., p. 18.