September 20, 2020

Volume X, Number 264

September 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

To Kill A Mockingbird: Federal Court Invalidates Department Of Interior's MBTA Opinion Letter

In her opening statement to an August 11 opinion, United States District Court Judge Valerie Caproni writes:

“It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime.”

Judge Caproni’s literary reference is the launching point for addressing the matter at hand: the validity of the Department of Interior’s December 22, 2017, Memorandum M-37050, which concludes that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibition on the “taking” or “killing” of migratory birds applies only to deliberate acts intended to take a migratory bird. The M-Opinion announced the Trump administration’s view of the take prohibition in the MBTA, and states that the Trump administration will not seek criminal penalties against individuals and industries —such as oil and gas, as well as renewable energy— for incidentally taking migratory birds. The M-Opinion significantly limited the scope of the take prohibition in the MBTA, reducing the potential liability for development of infrastructure and renewable energy projects.

Judge Caproni writes that Interior’s opinion violates the letter of the law for the past century and contradicts Interior’s long held position that even incidental take or kill of a migratory bird violated the MBTA “irrespective of whether the activities targeted birds or were intended to take or kill birds.” Now, Judge Caproni stated,

“[I]f the Department of the Interior has its way, many mockingbirds and other migratory birds that delight people and support ecosystems throughout the country will be killed without legal consequence.”

Judge Caproni devotes the remainder of her ruling explaining why the M-Opinion violates the Administrative Procedures Act as contrary to law. Judge Caproni rejected Interior’s narrow reading of the statute as lacking support in the plain language of the MBTA. As Judge Caproni explained,

“There is nothing in the text of the MBTA that suggests that in order to fall within its prohibition, activity must be directed specifically at birds. Nor does the statute prohibit only intentionally killing migratory birds. And it certainly does not say that only ‘some’ kills are prohibited.”

While Judge Caproni acknowledged that in drafting the MBTA Congress may have been “principally concerned” about over-hunting, Congress chose not to narrowly draw the prohibition in the statute to intentional take or kill of birds.

The August 11 order vacates the M-Opinion.

Copyright 2020 K & L GatesNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 227

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Ankur K. Tohan, KL Gates Law Firm, Environmental Law Attorney
Partner

Ankur Tohan works with the firm's Environmental, Land and Natural Resources practice. His practice focuses on energy infrastructure, natural resource development, compliance counseling, and defense of governmental and citizen enforcement actions.

Ankur helps clients navigate complex regulatory, permitting, and enforcement matters under a range of environmental statutes, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA...

206-370-7658
Gabrielle E. Thompson Environmental Attorney K&L Gates
Associate

Gabrielle Thompson is an associate in K&L Gates’s Seattle office where she concentrates her practice on environmental litigation and appeals, environmental regulatory compliance and enforcement, and land use and permitting. Gabrielle has experience in advising clients on complex matters relating to environmental compliance and permitting under several state and federal environmental laws in connection with commercial development and large infrastructure projects, including the Washington Forest Practices Act, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Additionally, Gabrielle has experience in litigating before state and federal courts, as well as state environmental boards, including the Pollution Control Hearings Board and Shoreline Hearings Board.

206-370-8097