A federal judge has decided, once again, that the courts ultimately should set policy in this country and not its duly-elected officials.
That's the only way you can interpret a ruling that says an agency that creates a list CAN'T add or subtract from that list.
A federal judge is restoring legal protections for grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park.
This will effectively block planned hunts in Idaho and Wyoming by reversing the Trump Administration's efforts to remove the Yellowstone area bears from protection.
The judge ruled that plans to delist the bears by the Fish and Wildlife Service were arbitrary and capricious and that it would threaten the animals' future.
You've heard me talk about the words "arbitrary and capricious" on the show in the past. These are the words that the courts use when they want to say, "the Trump Administration needs to run every policy change past me so that I can rule whether I like it or not."
Let's make this simple: the Fish and Wildlife Service can create and oversee an endangered species act. It can add and subtract animals from that act. Have you noticed that lower courts always rule that government can expand...but never contract?
As an example: President Obama puts in place an executive order. You would think - rightly - that another President can retract that executive order. But courts are using "arbitrary and capricious" to rule that policy can be established at the order of one President - but can't be withdrawn by another.