Twenty U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have filed two lawsuits challenging new federal regulations governing the Endangered Species Act. The states argue that the changes unlawfully weaken protections for endangered and threatened wildlife and the habitats they need to survive.
One dispute centers on a narrower interpretation of what counts as “harm” to a protected species. The previous regulatory definition included significant habitat modification or degradation that could ultimately injure or kill wildlife. The states argue that removing that language could make it easier for activities such as development to occur in important habitats.
The second lawsuit challenges changes affecting newly listed threatened species and the designation of critical habitat. Among other things, the new framework removes automatic protections previously extended to newly listed threatened species and changes the process through which areas may be excluded from critical-habitat designations.
The lawsuits now put the future of these regulations before the courts. The states want the rules overturned, arguing that they conflict with the purpose and requirements of the Endangered Species Act, while the administration has defended its changes as correcting regulatory overreach. The outcome could influence how endangered wildlife and their habitats are protected across the United States.
