On August 5, 2025, Federal District Judge Donald Molloy vacated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2024 determination that gray wolves in the Western U.S. do not warrant Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections and remanded the matter for a new decision. The ruling in the case brought by Wilderness Watch and allies—represented by Matt Bishop of the Western Environmental Law Center—set aside the “not warranted” finding issued last year and requires the agency to redo its analysis consistent with the ESA.
Judge Molloy agreed with our central arguments. He concluded that, “for the most part,” the challengers were correct and the USFWS failed to use the “best available science.” The opinion identified multiple flaws: the agency discounted lost historical range and failed to analyze whether wolves are endangered or threatened in a “significant portion” of their range; it relied on contested state population models without addressing uncertainty and applying peer-reviewed science; and it insufficiently considered human-caused mortality and the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
The court was particularly critical of USFWS’s confidence in state assurances that wolf killing would stop at certain thresholds, despite acknowledged limitations and lag in the models used to track populations. Agencies must grapple with uncertainty, not assume it away. Judge Molloy held that vacating the 2024 determination was appropriate because it contained “serious and pervasive” errors.
The court therefore vacated the “not warranted” determination and ordered the agency to prepare a new analysis. The order does not relist wolves or immediately change on-the-ground management. Instead, it requires a fresh status review. USFWS must provide an explanation that addresses our—and the court’s—concerns, including the treatment of range, the uncertainty of population modeling, and the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms if state policies continue to drive wolf numbers down.
This litigation followed petitions filed in 2021 by Wilderness Watch, Western Watersheds Project, and others seeking to restore protections—either by relisting Northern Rockies wolves or by recognizing and protecting a larger Western population. The agency’s 2024 finding rejected those petitions. Judge Molloy’s decision requires the agency to reconsider that outcome using the ESA’s scientific standards.
Developments in Montana underscore the importance of the court’s directives. In August, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted regulations that substantially increase wolf killing. For the 2025-26 season, the new rules raise the statewide wolf-kill quota for hunters and trappers to 452 and add a separate quota of 100 wolves for “controlled removals” by USDA Wildlife Services or private citizens. The rules also allow up to 15 wolves to be killed on a single hunting license and 15 on a trapping license—30 wolves per person.
With the state’s current population estimate of approximately 1,090 wolves, the combined quotas authorize the killing of 552 wolves—more than half of all wolves in Montana—without even accounting for incidental or illegal kills. These policies illustrate the kind of state-level developments USFWS must consider when determining whether existing mechanisms adequately protect the species.
Several anti-wolf organizations—including Safari Club International, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation—have provided notice of their intent to appeal Judge Molloy’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This ruling reaffirms the ESA: science first, uncertainty addressed openly, and decisions backed with a transparent, record-based rationale,” said Wilderness Watch staff attorney Dan Brister. “Wolves deserve nothing less. Wilderness Watch and our allies brought this case to uphold these standards and will continue to make sure USFWS’s next decision meets the letter and spirit of the law.”
Photo: Sam Parks
