## Facts

- The United States implemented the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which requires a U.S. “scientific authority” to find that export of an Appendix II species will not be detrimental to the species’ survival.
- The bobcat (*Lynx rufus*) was listed on CITES Appendix II, making export of bobcat pelts subject to permit requirements and “no detriment” findings, though the species was not domestically listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- The Endangered Species Scientific Authority (ESSA) served as the U.S. scientific authority responsible for monitoring exports and making “no detriment” determinations.
- In 1979, ESSA issued guidelines making broad, categorical “findings in favor of export” that approved export of thousands of bobcat pelts from 34 states and the Navajo Nation.
- Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation organization, challenged the guidelines, alleging the findings were not supported by adequate scientific data and relied on permissive criteria inconsistent with CITES, the ESA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The district court temporarily halted exports, then set aside ESSA’s findings for five states and parts of two others, but dismissed the challenge as to the remaining jurisdictions.
- Defenders appealed, arguing the guidelines’ methodology was unlawful across jurisdictions because it tolerated major data gaps and effectively presumed exports were non-detrimental.

## Issues

1. What CITES and implementing U.S. law require of the U.S. scientific authority when making “no detriment” findings for export of Appendix II species.
2. Whether ESSA’s 1979 bobcat export guidelines and supporting findings were arbitrary and capricious under the APA due to insufficient scientific support and inadequate explanation.
3. What relief is appropriate when the administrative record does not support broad export authorizations.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit rejected ESSA’s permissive approach to “no detriment” findings as insufficiently grounded in scientific evidence.
- The court held that the scientific authority must support export authorizations with adequate scientific data and a reasoned analysis tied to the record, consistent with CITES and domestic implementing law.
- The court required ESSA to revise its bobcat export guidelines to satisfy these requirements and remanded for further proceedings.
- The disposition effectively required suspension or strict limitation of bobcat exports until compliant, scientifically supported guidelines were adopted.

## Legal Principles

- Under CITES Appendix II, a U.S. scientific authority must make a substantive, evidence-based determination that proposed exports will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.
- “No detriment” findings must be supported by adequate scientific data and a reasoned methodology; conclusory or assumption-driven determinations are insufficient.
- Reliance on state management programs may be permissible, but the scientific authority must still examine relevant information (e.g., population status, harvest levels, monitoring quality) and explain why exports at authorized levels are sustainable.
- Under the APA, an agency action is unlawful if the agency fails to examine relevant data or fails to provide a rational explanation connecting the record to its decision, particularly where the agency authorizes large-scale activity amid significant uncertainty.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required that CITES “no detriment” export determinations be scientifically supported and explained in a manner that connects the administrative record to export authorizations, and it remanded ESSA’s bobcat export guidelines for revision because the existing approach did not meet these standards.


Defenders of Wildlife, Inc. v. Endangered Species Sci. Auth., 659 F.2d 168 (D.C. Cir. 1981)