Date: 5/9/25 12:12 pm From: Louise via Tweeters <tweeters...> Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Proposed weakening of Endangered Species Act
Unfortunately this is not something that is coming from the agencies, or
even the current administration. This is coming out of a couple of terrible
2024 Supreme Court rulings, such as the overturning of Chevron.
When it was first drafted, the Endangered Species Act intended 'harm' to
apply directly to individuals. As understanding of ecology grew and how
impossible it is to protect a species without also protecting its habitat,
the interpretation of 'harm' by the government and its various agencies was
broadened to include indirect harm by disturbing habitat.
Last year's Supreme Court rulings have decided that this interpretation is
too broad and the government had no right to do it. “courts need not and
under the [Administrative Procedure Act] may not defer to an agency
interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
The Biden administration had already begun the process of adjusting the
policies and wording of its agencies' directives in order to comply with
the Supreme Court rulings, and the current administration has continued
that process.
This proposed rewording is not a direct result of the administration's
policies (although I doubt they disagree with it) - it is intended to make
the wording of the law more closely reflect its application as directed by
the Supreme Court. Sadly, no amount of people commenting on the proposed
change saying that it's terrible will over-ride the Supreme Court ruling.
There are two solutions to the problem - one is for the government to draft
a new endangered species act from scratch that specifically protects
habitat. The other is to wait until we have a more progressive Supreme
Court that may revisit the ruling, since this is apparently a thing that
happens now.
Louise Rutter
Kirkland
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 10:54 AM Faye McAdams Hands via Tweeters <
<tweeters...> wrote:
