Trump admin sued by 9 environmental groups over definition of 'harm'
Trump administration sued for removing harm definition from Endangered Species Act rules. Lawsuit challenges change to 'harm' definition Administration defends policy shift Conservation groups warn
Trump administration sued for removing harm definition from Endangered Species Act rules. Lawsuit challenges change to 'harm' definition Administration defends policy shift Conservation groups warn of impact Wider Environmental policy changes Nine environmental organisations have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging its decision to withdraw a long-standing interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that treated habitat destruction as a form of harm to protected wildlife, Reuters reported.The case, filed in a federal court in Seattle, argues that the administration's move weakens safeguards for threatened species by endangered and narrowing how the law is applied.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to overturn the policy, saying it conflicts with the language and purpose of the Act.The legal challenge centres on a July 10 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Marine Fisheries Service to remove a regulatory definition of "harm" that had been in place for more than five decades.Under the revised approach, habitat degradation alone would no longer automatically qualify as an illegal "take" of protected species under the Endangered Species Act.The lawsuit argues that eliminating the definition is unlawful, arbitrary and inconsistent with decades of legal interpretation, including a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recognised significant habitat destruction as a form of harm when it injures protected wildlife.The defendants include the two federal agencies, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.Responding to the lawsuit, the Interior Department said it was reversing what it described as a regulatory overreach that Congress had never authorised.
The department said it would defend the policy in court, arguing that federal agencies must apply the Endangered Species Act according to its statutory language rather than broader interpretations.The plaintiffs include the Sierra Club and the Centre for Biological Diversity, represented by Earthjustice.The organisations argue that protecting the places where vulnerable animals live, feed and breed is central to the Endangered Species Act. They contend that removing habitat protection from the definition of harm could make it more difficult to prevent activities that threaten vulnerable wildlife.The lawsuit comes amid a series of environmental policy changes by the Trump administration, including reduced support for clean energy initiatives and the rollback of several climate and environmental regulations.
The BriefWire