In most cases when trial courts consider issuing injunctions, the judge should consider the public interest along with the interest of the individual parties. For cases applying the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Congress removed that “public interest” consideration, directing judges to issue injunctions that protect endangered species whatever the cost.

Competing Interests of Endangered Species
The 9th Circuit determined that if injunctive relief under the ESA may benefit one protected species at the expense of other protected species, a court must consider and balance competing interests as to all protected species that may be affected.

The injunction issued by the trial court protected the steelhead trout but could harm the California red-legged frog and the tidewater goby, which are also entitled to ESA protection. The 9th Circuit rejected the argument that when injunctions might harm other protected species, the court must balance all the usual equities when considering an injunction, such as economic and development. Rather, “the only equities that matter here are those related to the interest of other ESA-listed species.”

Analyze Evidence on All Protected Species
In the injunction to protect the steelhead, the district court directed the parties and agencies to implement the injunction in a way that protected all species; this was inadequate.

The district court “must weigh the evidence on all affected species” and fashion an injunction that balances the interests of all protected species. The 9th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further analysis.

To see the opinion: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/12/03/24-7807.pdf