Page:Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al..pdf/3

Rh “may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of” designation. The word “may” certainly confers discretion on the Secretary, but it does not segregate his discretionary decision not to exclude from the mandated procedure to consider the economic and other impacts of designation when making his exclusion decisions. The statute is, therefore, not “drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the [Secretary’s] exercise of [his] discretion” not to exclude. Lincoln, 508 U. S., at 191. Weyerhaeuser’s claim–that the agency did not appropriately consider all the relevant statutory factors meant to guide the agency in the exercise of its discretion–is the sort of claim that federal courts routinely assess when determining whether to set aside an agency decision as an abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals should consider in the first instance the question whether the Service’s assessment of the costs and benefits of designation and resulting decision not to exclude Unit 1 was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Pp. 10–15.

827 F. 3d 452, vacated and remanded.

, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.