A federal judge let stand a lawsuit led by California along with 18 other states challenging the new Endangered Species Act (ESA) rollbacks.
In a separate decision, the judge also tossed out a lawsuit filed by environmental groups alleging the ESA rollbacks failed to analyze the harms that could result from the change.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar rejected the Interior and Commerce Departments’ arguments that the suit led by the states should be dismissed because they lacked standing to sue, and they couldn’t show any harm since the regulations issued last year have not yet been applied.
In denying the request to dismiss the suit, Tigar said the states had shown they could suffer biological and economic harm if the law were weakened.
The ESA, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, protects the existence and habitat of more than 1,600 plants and animals threatened with extinction.
As part of President Trump’s Executive Order announced in July 2018, directing federal agencies “to lower regulatory burdens,” three aspects to the law were changed. One change affects the consultation process used to prevent harm to endangered species from federal activities.
Another eliminates protections for wildlife newly designated as threatened, and the final change affects how agencies designate critical habitats and will weaken a listing process for imperiled species.
The change in guidelines for the ESA allows the Department of the Interior to consider economic factors rather than base their decisions to list a species as threatened or endangered, “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
Tigar wrote in his decision, “An enhanced risk of biodiversity loss and degradation of fish and wildlife natural resources clearly follows from the services’ alleged weakening of ESA safeguards designed to conserve hundreds of endangered and threatened species within state plaintiffs’ territories.”
With the alleged weakening of federal protections, Tigar also found it “reasonably probable” that states will be economically burdened by shouldering the responsibility of protecting imperiled species and habitats.
“When a species goes extinct, there’s no turning back the clock,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “In California, we recognize the importance of biodiversity, and we cherish the hundreds of endangered species that make their home in this state. We commend the court for moving this challenge onward and look forward to continuing our strong fight against these unlawful rules.”
Environmental groups challenge
A separate challenge was launched in August of last year from the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, and four other groups.
Tigar found the complaint too ambiguous in its current form, failing to demonstrate how the new rules would harm them. Tigar wrote the groups failed to “establish a concrete and particularized injury in fact with respect to conservation group plaintiffs’ members.”
The environmental groups argued the changes to the ESA violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. On December 6, 2019, the federal government moved to dismiss the environmental groups’ suit for lack of jurisdiction.
“Conservation group plaintiffs fail to allege any diversion or reallocation of resources from their core mission and activities,” Tigar wrote in his decision. “Plaintiffs allege that the final rules ‘require the expenditure of further resources as plaintiffs expend time and effort attempting to ensure that its petitions are addressed in a timely manner.’ However, they fail to show how this ‘expenditure of further resources’ diverts any resources from its core mission or deviates from ‘going about its business as usual.’”
Earthjustice Attorney Kristen Boyles, who represents the conservation groups, said the case is far from over.
Boyles asserts that granting the motion to dismiss it allows the groups to file an amended complaint that addresses the facts presented as declarations in opposition to the motion to dismiss. — Charles Wallace, WLJ correspondent
