Key facts
- Nine environmental groups are suing the Trump administration.
- The lawsuit challenges the rescission of a 50-year-old definition of 'harm' under the Endangered Species Act.
- Plaintiffs argue that significant habitat modification or degradation no longer qualifies as an illegal 'take' of wildlife.
- The suit names the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as defendants.
Nine environmental groups have filed a lawsuit in Seattle federal court against the Trump administration, challenging its decision to rescind a 50-year-old definition of 'harm' under the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service determinations that a freestanding definition of 'harm' is unnecessary, and that habitat degradation does not constitute an illegal 'take', violate the law.
According to the complaint, abandoning this definition undermines the "ordinary understanding" of harm, which the Supreme Court previously endorsed. The groups contend the administration prioritized "political policy considerations" by following a dissenting opinion from a 1995 Supreme Court case. They assert that protecting wildlife habitats is a foundational aspect of the Endangered Species Act and that the repeal disregards decades of legal precedent.
Kristen Boyles, a lawyer for Earthjustice representing the plaintiffs, stated that preventing harm to wildlife by protecting their living spaces is a basic tenet of the Endangered Species Act and that the repeal violates the statute's core language. The lawsuit names the two agencies, along with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, as defendants.