trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/vjXYXeCCL1TGWX9x2Fwdmg2 content esgSubNav
In This List

Green groups sue Trump administration over endangered species rulemakings

Podcast

Next in Tech | Episode 49: Carbon reduction in cloud

Blog

Using ESG Analysis to Support a Sustainable Future

Research

US utility commissioners: Who they are and how they impact regulation

Blog

Q&A: Datacenters: Energy Hogs or Sustainability Helpers?


Green groups sue Trump administration over endangered species rulemakings

Earthjustice has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a number of environmental and animal rights groups challenging the Trump administration's recent reforms to the Endangered Species Act.

The groups include the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, WildEarth Guardians, and the Humane Society.

"The new rules move the Endangered Species Act dangerously away from its grounding in sound science that has made the Act so effective — opening the door to political decisions couched as claims that threats to species are too uncertain to address," Siera Club attorney Karimah Schoenhut said in a statement.

At issue are rulemakings issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or FWS, and National Marine Fisheries Service on Aug. 12. They address policies for adding or removing species from the act's, or ESA's, list; designating protected habitat for plant and animal species; and consulting other federal agencies.

One of the rules also eliminates a requirement that species listed as threatened rather than endangered automatically be covered by the same protections as species listed as endangered. However, the agencies clarified that the protections that currently apply to threatened species will not change unless the FWS adopts a species-specific rule in the future.

The lawsuit that Earthjustice filed on Aug. 21 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California argued that the rulemakings gut one of the country's most successful environmental laws.

"The FWS and [National Marine Fisheries Service] cannot adopt regulations that are manifestly contrary to the text and purpose of the ESA," the lawsuit said. It further alleged that the rules rely exclusively on mitigation promises, redefine ongoing harms, and limit the effects and activities considered during the consultation process. In addition, they "lack detailed justification and rational basis and fails to use the best available science" as required by the ESA, according to the lawsuit.

The groups further contended that the administration should have performed an environmental impact statement on the rulemakings. "The final regulatory revisions are major federal actions, none qualify for categorical exclusions from [National Environmental Policy Act] compliance, and each will affect the human environment by undermining the ESA’s purpose and protections," the lawsuit stated.

In addition, the environmental groups argued the agencies made changes in the final rules, such as the definition of when to designate unoccupied land as critical habitat, that were not proposed earlier and therefore violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires opportunity for public notice and input.

The lawsuit asked the court to vacate the regulations and, in the meantime, enjoin the agencies from applying or otherwise relying upon the revisions.

While environmental groups, as well as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, have vowed to fight the rulemakings in court, trade groups representing the oil and gas industry and electric cooperatives have praised the changes. The trade groups contend the revisions will ensure resources are focused on the most affected plants and animals while also speeding up decisionmaking on key infrastructure projects, including pipelines and electric transmission lines.