Norman D. James

• Nat’l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 664 (2007). Lead counsel for industry trade associations in an action challenging EPA's approval of Arizona's application to administer the NPDES program under Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court, in reversing the Ninth Circuit, held that Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA applies only in situations in which there is discretionary federal involvement or control.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 80 F.4th 943 (9th Cir. 2023). Representation of the National Shooting Sports Foundation in action alleging that the Forest Service was violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by failing to ban the use of lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest and endangering California condors and other scavengers.  The court rejected the challenge, holding that the agency’s failure to regulate hunting did not create RCRA liability.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 441 F. Supp. 3d 843 (D. Ariz. 2020), rev’d 67 F.4th 1027 (9th Cir. 2023). Representation of Rosemont Copper Company in challenge to the designation of critical habitat for the jaguar over a substantial portion of the company’s mining project. In reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that the designation was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to explain why the area was essential to the conservation of the jaguar species.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 409 F. Supp. 3d 738 (D. Ariz. 2019), aff’d 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). Representation of Rosemont Copper Company in multiple lawsuits challenging federal permits for its proposed open pit mine in southern Arizona. The district court ignored most of the claims being asserted, and instead ruled that the company’s proposed use of unpatented mining claims for the disposal of tailings and waste rock violated the Mining Law of 1872 because the was no evidence that the claims were valid. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 623 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2010) (decision on rehearing). Representation of ASARCO LLC in connection with challenges to a 10,000-acre land exchange with the Bureau of Land Management. On appeal, a majority of the Ninth Circuit panel determined that the EIS failed to properly evaluate the effects of the exchange in its EIS because the agency failed to take into consideration its ability to restrict mining under its surface use regulations at 43 C.F.R. subpart 3809. The EIS was therefore remanded back to the BLM for further analysis of the land exchange’s effects.
• Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass'n v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). Representation of the ACGA in challenging the designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. Although the challenge to the critical habitat designation was not successful, the Ninth Circuit's opinion clarified that "occupied areas" are areas which "the [species] uses with sufficient regularity that [the species] is likely to be present during any reasonable span of time," which limits the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to declare land to be occupied when designating critical habitat.
• Nat’l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 664 (2007). Lead counsel for industry trade associations in an action challenging EPA's approval of Arizona's application to administer the NPDES program under Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court, in reversing the Ninth Circuit, held that Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA applies only in situations in which there is discretionary federal involvement or control.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 80 F.4th 943 (9th Cir. 2023). Representation of the National Shooting Sports Foundation in action alleging that the Forest Service was violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by failing to ban the use of lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest and endangering California condors and other scavengers.  The court rejected the challenge, holding that the agency’s failure to regulate hunting did not create RCRA liability.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 441 F. Supp. 3d 843 (D. Ariz. 2020), rev’d 67 F.4th 1027 (9th Cir. 2023). Representation of Rosemont Copper Company in challenge to the designation of critical habitat for the jaguar over a substantial portion of the company’s mining project. In reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that the designation was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to explain why the area was essential to the conservation of the jaguar species.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 409 F. Supp. 3d 738 (D. Ariz. 2019), aff’d 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). Representation of Rosemont Copper Company in multiple lawsuits challenging federal permits for its proposed open pit mine in southern Arizona. The district court ignored most of the claims being asserted, and instead ruled that the company’s proposed use of unpatented mining claims for the disposal of tailings and waste rock violated the Mining Law of 1872 because the was no evidence that the claims were valid. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed.
• Ctr. for Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 623 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2010) (decision on rehearing). Representation of ASARCO LLC in connection with challenges to a 10,000-acre land exchange with the Bureau of Land Management. On appeal, a majority of the Ninth Circuit panel determined that the EIS failed to properly evaluate the effects of the exchange in its EIS because the agency failed to take into consideration its ability to restrict mining under its surface use regulations at 43 C.F.R. subpart 3809. The EIS was therefore remanded back to the BLM for further analysis of the land exchange’s effects.
• Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass'n v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). Representation of the ACGA in challenging the designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. Although the challenge to the critical habitat designation was not successful, the Ninth Circuit's opinion clarified that "occupied areas" are areas which "the [species] uses with sufficient regularity that [the species] is likely to be present during any reasonable span of time," which limits the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to declare land to be occupied when designating critical habitat.

*Certain representations occurred prior to joining Dorsey