Updated

Updated · NPR · Jul 14

Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act 'Harm' Change

Updated

Updated · NPR · Jul 14

Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act 'Harm' Change

Q: A 1995 Supreme Court ruling protected habitats. How can a new rule now legally override that longstanding precedent?

It does not automatically override the 1995 precedent; it creates a new legal test case that courts will have to resolve. In *Babbitt v. Sweet Home* in 1995, the Supreme Court did not say the Endangered Species Act unambiguously requires habitat protection under the word “harm.” It said the agencies’ broader definition — including habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife — was a permissible interpretation of an ambiguous statute. That mattered because the Court was then applying *Chevron* deference, which told judges to uphold a reasonable agency reading. The administration now argues that the legal landscape changed with the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in *Loper Bright*, which ended *Chevron* deference. Under that ruling, agencies and courts are supposed to look for the “best” reading of the statute, not just any reasonable one. Relying on that shift, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service say the best reading of “take” and “harm” covers direct injury to animals, not habitat destruction. That is the legal theory behind the new rule. It does not erase *Sweet Home* by itself. Opponents will argue that *Sweet Home* still carries statutory precedent and that the ESA’s text and purpose — including protecting “the ecosystems upon which” species depend — support habitat coverage. Courts will now decide whether *Sweet Home* merely allowed the old rule, or whether it effectively settled the meaning of the statute.

3 articles · Updated · NPR · Jul 14

Environmental groups filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s revised definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.
The change could narrow how the law protects wildlife by limiting when habitat damage or other actions count as harm to endangered species.
The suits set up a legal fight over how broadly one of the United States’ main wildlife protection laws can be enforced.

Sources

Left80%

Center20%

NPR2h ago

Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act 'Harm' Definition Change

The Guardian2d ago

Death sentence': Trump administration to open habitats of endangered species to logging and mining | Trump administration | The Guardian

CNN4d ago

Trump administration opens endangered species' habitats to development, reversing 50 years of environmental law | CNN

8 Sources

A 1995 Supreme Court ruling protected habitats. How can a new rule now legally override that longstanding precedent?

With habitat loss no longer defined as 'harm,' how will the 81% of species primarily threatened by it survive?

The 2026 Endangered Species Act Rollback: Legal, Ecological, and Political Fallout from Redefining "Harm"

Overview

On July 10, 2026, the Trump administration changed the Endangered Species Act by redefining what counts as 'harm' to protected species. This new rule weakens protections and allows more activities, like fossil fuel extraction and land development, to move forward without strict oversight. Experts warn that many species, already suffering from habitat loss, will face even greater threats and could be pushed closer to extinction. The change is expected to trigger strong legal challenges and marks a major shift in how the nation protects its most vulnerable wildlife.

...