In late April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Earl Jones, an Idaho rancher who was the defendant in a case brought by two Idaho environmental groups.

The case concerns the use of evidence and proof in attaining an injunction under the Endangered Species Act. The environmental groups asserted without proof that by diverting water from a creek to its alfalfa farm, the Jones family harmed bull trout, which are protected under the ESA.

In a press release by the Pacific Legal Foundation (which represented Jones' case), said that the case is significant because "it is the first time the Ninth Circuit has clarified the type of evidence that must be demonstrated in order for an environmental plaintiff to obtain an injunction under the ESA."

PLF explains further that:

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling clarifies — for the first time — that environmental plaintiffs must present actual evidence that a species is likely to be harmed before an injunction can be issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is indicative of the likelihood of future harm.