California Supreme Court Denies Bumble Bee Petition

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022, the California Supreme Court (Court) denied the petition for review submitted by the Almond Alliance of California, which challenged the authority of the state’s Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to determine if four bumble bee species can be protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), despite terrestrial invertebrates not being one of the identified categories eligible for protection. This outcome follows the Third District Court of Appeal’s ruling in May, which determined that the California Legislature intended for the definition of “fish” in section 45 of the Fish and Game Code to include terrestrial invertebrates. To read more about the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision, click here.

The Court’s denial of the petition leaves future clarification up to legislation. In a statement released by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, the Chief Justice states that the denial “…does not communicate any particular view regarding the merits of the issues presented in the petition.” But rather she suggests that perhaps the Legislature should make statutory amendments that it may regard as being useful or necessary. The Chief Justice also notes that on occasion courts are required to interpret legislative intent that ends with a conclusion that appears to result in an illogical outcome – such as in this case where bees are now regarded as fish under CESA. She explains that this occasionally occurs due to the need to consider context of the statute, which may result in an unusual meaning of the law. However, the Chief Justice did state that the decision does not preclude the Court from considering the reach of the CESA in some future case. The Chief Justice concludes the Court’s statement with, “…it may not be exceptional for a court to determine that a particular word or phrase within a statute carries a meaning that deviates from common parlance or understanding, such decisions also can provide notice to legislators that some clarification may be in order.” View Update