USA10 September, 20262 min read
20 Democratic-Led States And DC Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act Rollbacks
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Twenty-one Democratic attorneys general and DC filed two lawsuits challenging ESA rollbacks. Lawsuits target ESA rule changes by FWS and NMFS.
States sue over ESA cuts
A coalition of 20 Democratic-led US states and the District of Columbia sued President Donald Trump’s administration over rules they say illegally weaken the Endangered Species Act, with the lawsuits filed less than two months after the US Departments of the Interior and Commerce announced final rules. The first lawsuit challenges a narrowing of the definition of “harm” in the 1973 law, which the plaintiffs say previously included threats to the habitats of animals and plants.
Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said the Trump administration is trying to undermine the law, the will of Congress and public support for protecting endangered species. The second lawsuit targets two new rules, including one that eliminates broad protections for newly listed threatened species unless the US Fish and Wildlife Service introduces separate regulations for a specific species, and another that requires the government to consider objections from private companies before designating certain areas as critical habitat.
Burgum defends changes
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the changes, saying the act had been used to block projects, harm competitiveness and disrupt the economy.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Gov. Tina Kotek announced lawsuits on Sept. 9, with Rayfield saying the first lawsuit challenges the removal of the "longstanding definition of 'harm' under the ESA."
Rayfield said historically “harm” included causing damage to a protected species’ habitat — the kind that interfered with breeding, feeding or shelter.
The Trump administration, through an Interior Department spokesperson as reported by Reuters, said federal agencies must enforce the law as written rather than expand its scope through interpretations supported by public organizations, while the states argue the changes could make it easier for companies to develop environmentally sensitive lands inhabited by endangered species.
What’s at stake next
The lawsuits seek to protect habitat of imperiled wildlife by challenging rules the states say “strip away core protections under the Endangered Species Act” and “make it easier for private companies and individuals to damage or destroy” the land wildlife rely on. Attorney General Phil Weiser said Colorado is home to over 30 threatened and endangered species that are critical to stable and healthy ecosystems, and he argued the changes put threatened and endangered species and their habitats at risk.
Weiser said the coalition’s first lawsuit challenges the rescission of the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm,” which had included “significant habitat modification or degradation” that could kill or injure wildlife by damaging species’ natural habitats and behavioral patterns. In the second lawsuit, Weiser said the rules leave threatened species without core protections by making it easier for private companies or individuals to modify or degrade the habitats of listed threatened and endangered species, and he said the coalition argues the changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act.