A coalition of 20 states and Washington, D.C., is taking President Donald Trump's administration to court over changes to endangered-species protections that they argue strip away key habitat safeguards many species still need to survive.
Here's what to know
According to Stateline, in two lawsuits filed on Sept. 9, the coalition argues that the federal government has withdrawn habitat safeguards that many species still need to survive.
One case centers on a narrower reading of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act. Under the new federal interpretation, the term applies solely to actions that physically injure or kill animals.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies used a broader standard that also treated damage to forests, streams, and wetlands as illegal when species rely on those places to breed and rear young.
Another lawsuit targets revised rules for "critical habitat" designations.
The states allege those changes reduce protections for newly listed threatened species and give federal officials more leeway to avoid designating certain land as critical habitat.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
More background
Across the cases, the coalition maintains that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta asserted that the rule changes threaten a long-standing conservation system.
"For over half a century, the (Endangered Species Act) has stood as a bipartisan example of what it means to protect an irreplaceable part of our planet, but these new rules attempt to destroy longstanding and integral regulatory protections and open the door to further species decline and possible extinctions."
The states say they cannot fully make up for the loss of federal habitat protections on their own.
What's being done?
Through the lawsuits, the attorneys general are asking courts to restore the protections that treated habitat destruction as a form of harm under the Endangered Species Act.
If the states win, federal agencies could again have to consider whether development, pollution, or other disturbances are damaging the places endangered species need to survive. It would also make it harder to sidestep critical habitat designations for vulnerable land.
"The federal government's attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act threatens the habitats of orcas, sockeye salmon, and other endangered species that are part of our economy, culture, and way of life," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown warned in a press release.
Where can I learn more?
The legal fight doesn't exist in a vacuum. Similar disputes have surfaced in battles over wildlife protections elsewhere.
• The Trump administration moved ahead with controversial changes to long-standing habitat rules, alarming conservation advocates nationwide.
• In Arizona, conservation groups said illegal livestock grazing kept destroying habitat for federally protected species.
• Along the Delaware River, states faced Endangered Species Act claims over threats to Atlantic sturgeon.
• In California, water-policy changes drew backlash as risks to fish conservation mounted for aquatic species.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
