Daniel Ahrens, a certified law student with the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, which represented the conservation groups in court, said that “today’s decision reinforces important legal principles for endangered species: that agencies must base their decisions on the best available science, fully explain their decisions, and carefully consider the status of an imperiled species, especially segments that are small and vulnerable. The evidence before the Fish & Wildlife Service showed that the bi-state sage grouse is in danger and that the Service must do more to consider and protect it.” Stanford certified law student Zach Rego, who also represented the conservation groups alongside Ahrens, added that the court was right to hold that the Service “also must do more to show that conservation measures, like the removal of invasive cheatgrass, will be effective in preventing the bi-state sage grouse’s extinction.”

Read More