Master Ninth Circuit affirmed that a state agency "takes" an endangered species under the ESA by maintaining feral ungulates that significantly modify and degrade the species' critical habitat. with this comprehensive case brief.
Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources is a landmark Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision that cemented a foundational principle of modern wildlife law: the prohibition on "taking" an endangered species extends beyond direct killing or capture and includes significant habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. By affirming a district court injunction ordering Hawaii to eradicate feral sheep and goats from the Palila's critical habitat on Mauna Kea, the Ninth Circuit made clear that government resource-management choices can violate the ESA when they foreseeably degrade habitat in ways that harm listed species.
The case is significant because it operationalized the ESA's broad conservation mandate against a state wildlife agency, recognized the binding force of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's regulatory definition of "harm," and showcased the potent remedial power of citizen suits to compel concrete habitat-protective action. Palila has been widely cited, anticipated the Supreme Court's later approval of the "habitat modification = harm" theory in Babbitt v. Sweet Home, and remains a touchstone for ESA enforcement against both public and private actors whose activities degrade critical habitat.
Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Resources, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981), aff'g 471 F. Supp. 985 (D. Haw. 1979)
The Palila (Loxoides bailleui) is an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper endemic to the upper slopes of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawai'i. Its survival depends on the mamane–naio dry forest ecosystem, particularly mamane seed pods for food and mature trees for nesting and shelter. For decades, the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) managed Mauna Kea as a game management area, introducing and maintaining herds of feral sheep and goats (and later mouflon) for sport hunting. Scientific evidence showed that browsing by these ungulates prevented mamane regeneration, destroyed seedlings, debarked mature trees, and degraded the forest, leading to food scarcity and nesting habitat loss for the Palila. In 1977, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service designated the Palila's critical habitat on Mauna Kea. Despite partial fencing and periodic culling, DLNR maintained populations of ungulates within the Palila's critical habitat to support hunting. Environmental organizations and individuals (with the Palila itself named in the caption) sued under the ESA's citizen-suit provision, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that DLNR's management policies constituted a prohibited "take" by causing significant habitat modification that actually injured and killed Palila through starvation, reproductive failure, and loss of shelter. The district court credited expert ecological evidence, found a violation of ESA § 9, and ordered eradication of feral sheep and goats from the Palila's critical habitat. DLNR appealed.
Does a state wildlife agency "take" an endangered species in violation of ESA § 9 by maintaining feral ungulates that significantly modify and degrade the species' critical habitat, thereby actually killing or injuring the species by impairing essential behaviors?
Under the Endangered Species Act, it is unlawful for any "person" to "take" any endangered species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). "Person" includes state agencies. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(13). "Take" means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). By regulation, "harm" reasonably includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. Courts may enjoin ongoing or threatened violations under the ESA's citizen-suit provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g).
Yes. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that DLNR's maintenance of feral sheep and goats within the Palila's designated critical habitat constituted a prohibited "take" under ESA § 9 because the resulting habitat destruction actually killed or injured Palila by impairing essential feeding and breeding behaviors. The court upheld injunctive relief requiring eradication of the ungulates from the Palila's habitat.
The court accepted the Fish & Wildlife Service's regulatory interpretation that "harm" under the ESA includes significant habitat modification or degradation that, in fact, kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavior patterns. That interpretation is consistent with the statute's text, structure, and overarching conservation purpose, which extends beyond preventing direct physical harm to individuals and includes preserving the ecosystems upon which endangered species depend. The record contained substantial expert evidence that ungulate browsing severely degraded the mamane–naio forest, preventing regeneration, damaging mature trees, and eliminating essential food sources and nesting sites. The consequent starvation, reduced reproductive success, and loss of shelter constituted actual injury and death to Palila attributable to habitat destruction. Causation was satisfied because DLNR was not a passive landowner; it actively introduced, maintained, and managed the ungulate herds for sport hunting within the Palila's critical habitat and resisted complete eradication. This management regime foreseeably and proximately produced the habitat conditions that harmed the Palila. The ESA's definition of "person" expressly includes state agencies, bringing DLNR within § 9's prohibition. Given an ongoing, concrete violation, the broad remedial purposes of the ESA and the citizen-suit provision warranted injunctive relief compelling the removal of the feral sheep and goats from the habitat. The court rejected the notion that only direct killing qualifies as a "take," emphasizing that Congress protected species through preservation of the habitats essential to their survival.
Palila established, early and emphatically, that ESA § 9 reaches significant habitat modification that actually harms a listed species and that state agencies can be enjoined for management practices that degrade critical habitat. It is frequently cited for the proposition that "take" encompasses indirect but foreseeable harms mediated through habitat destruction, laying doctrinal groundwork later endorsed by the Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Sweet Home (1995). The case also demonstrates the ESA's powerful remedial reach—courts can compel concrete, on-the-ground habitat restoration measures, including eradication of invasive or introduced animals, when necessary to prevent ongoing takes. For law students, Palila is foundational on: (1) the scope of ESA "take" and the legality of the regulatory definition of "harm"; (2) the applicability of ESA § 9 to state agencies as "persons"; (3) evidentiary showings linking habitat modification to actual injury; and (4) the availability and breadth of injunctive relief under the ESA's citizen-suit mechanism.
Palila I refers to the district court's decision enjoining DLNR to eradicate feral sheep and goats from the Palila's critical habitat, affirmed in Palila v. Hawaii DLNR, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981). Palila II addressed the continued presence of mouflon sheep and reaffirmed that maintaining ungulates that degrade the habitat constitutes a "take," resulting in a further injunction. See Palila v. Hawaii DLNR, 649 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Haw. 1986), aff'd, 852 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1988). Both decisions underscore that habitat modification can be unlawful "harm" under ESA § 9.
ESA § 9 applies to any "person," and the statute defines "person" to include state agencies and their instrumentalities. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(13), § 1538(a)(1). Palila confirms that a state wildlife agency can violate § 9 by authorizing or maintaining activities that result in a prohibited "take," including significant habitat modification that actually injures or kills listed species.
The case caption famously listed the Palila as a named plaintiff, but the courts did not resolve whether the bird had standing. Standing was clearly established for the human organizational and individual plaintiffs based on aesthetic, recreational, and scientific interests. In Palila II, the Ninth Circuit explicitly declined to address whether the Palila itself had standing because other plaintiffs had unquestioned standing.
The district court ordered DLNR to eradicate feral sheep and goats from the Palila's critical habitat on Mauna Kea, and later extended eradication to mouflon sheep. Injunctive relief was appropriate because the evidence showed an ongoing violation of ESA § 9—significant habitat modification was actually killing and injuring Palila—and the ESA's citizen-suit provision authorizes courts to enjoin continuing or threatened violations to protect listed species.
Palila was among the early appellate decisions upholding the Fish & Wildlife Service's interpretation that "harm" includes significant habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife. The Supreme Court later approved that interpretation in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), citing cases like Palila as persuasive support for the habitat-modification theory of "take."
Under 50 C.F.R. § 17.3, "harm" requires actual injury or death to wildlife, which may occur through significant habitat modification or degradation that impairs essential behavioral patterns (breeding, feeding, sheltering). In Palila, the ungulates' browsing prevented mamane forest regeneration and damaged mature trees, eliminating food and nest sites; the resulting starvation and reproductive failure of Palila constituted actual injury and death attributable to the habitat destruction.
Palila v. Hawaii DLNR crystallized a core ESA doctrine: the Act protects not only individual animals from direct physical harm but also the ecological conditions necessary for their survival. By holding that state-sanctioned habitat degradation can be a prohibited "take," the Ninth Circuit empowered courts to address the root causes of species decline and compelled government agencies to align wildlife-management objectives with federal conservation mandates.
Decades on, Palila remains a staple of environmental law curricula and a powerful tool for litigants seeking to safeguard critical habitat. Its reasoning continues to inform ESA enforcement against both public and private actors, and its remedial posture illustrates the judiciary's willingness to require concrete, habitat-restoring action when the evidence shows ongoing harm to a listed species.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →