Conservation Groups Sue To Defend Habitat Protections For Endangered Species Across The U.S.

A coalition of conservation organizations has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a rule finalized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Trump administration that repeals the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plaintiffs argue the rule could weaken habitat protections for endangered and threatened wildlife across the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Seattle, was brought by organizations represented by Earthjustice, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians.

For nearly 50 years, federal regulations have recognized that significant habitat modification or degradation may constitute “harm” under the Endangered Species Act when it kills or injures protected wildlife. According to the lawsuit, repealing that definition could reduce protections against habitat modification or degradation that harms imperiled wildlife.

The conservation groups argue the rule could affect numerous endangered and threatened species, including Florida manatees, grizzly bears, Hawaiian monk seals, Canada lynx, salmon, steelhead, northern spotted owls, golden-cheeked warblers, rufa red knots, and native insect pollinators that play a vital role in agriculture.

“Every animal and plant needs a home for food, shelter, and reproduction,” said Dave Werntz, science and conservation director at Conservation Northwest. “For wildlife trending toward extinction, access to high quality, ecologically functional and well-connected habitat is essential for survival and recovery.”

Signed into law in 1973, the Endangered Species Act is widely regarded as one of the nation’s most successful wildlife conservation laws, helping prevent the extinction of numerous species while supporting the recovery of wildlife through habitat conservation and other protections.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulatory definition of “harm,” affirming that habitat destruction can constitute harm under the Endangered Species Act when it results in injury to protected wildlife.

The conservation organizations argue the repeal conflicts with the Endangered Species Act, decades of legal precedent, and the scientific understanding that habitat loss remains one of the leading drivers of species decline and extinction.

The lawsuit asks the court to overturn the rule and restore the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.