Attorneys general from 20 Democratic-led US states and the District of Columbia filed two lawsuits on Wednesday against President Donald Trump’s administration, challenging new rules that they say weaken protections for endangered species.
The legal complaints were filed less than two months after the departments of the Interior and Commerce announced the rules, which could make it easier to develop sensitive lands that provide habitat for endangered species.
What the lawsuits challenge
One complaint argues that the administration unlawfully narrowed the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “harm”. The term has long been interpreted to include threats to endangered species’ habitats, but the states say the new rule reverses that approach.
The states argue the rule could allow activities such as mining and oil drilling in sensitive habitats when those activities are not directed immediately and intentionally at particular animals.
Key points
- One lawsuit challenges a narrower definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.
- The other challenges rules affecting newly threatened species and the designation of critical habitats.
- Environmental groups have also sued over the change.
Changes affecting species and habitats
The second lawsuit challenges two rules. One removes broad protections for newly threatened species unless the US Fish and Wildlife Service creates species-specific regulations.
The other requires the government to consider objections from private companies before designating areas as critical habitats. The states argue that both changes provide fewer safeguards than Congress set out in the Endangered Species Act.
The administration’s defence
The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been credited with helping restore populations of condors, grizzly bears and humpback whales. It is widely regarded as a central achievement of US conservation efforts.
The Trump administration says environmental protections have gone beyond what Congress intended. An Interior Department spokesperson said federal agencies should implement the law as written rather than expand it through interpretations supported by advocacy organisations.
No comments yet. Start the discussion.