Nine environmental organizations filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to eliminate a decades-old legal definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, arguing the move significantly weakens protections for endangered wildlife by narrowing the government’s ability to regulate habitat destruction.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, targets a July 10 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to rescind a regulatory definition that has guided federal enforcement of the Endangered Species Act for more than half a century. The agencies concluded that maintaining a separate definition of “harm” was unnecessary and determined that habitat degradation alone would no longer qualify as an illegal “take” of endangered or threatened species under federal law.
Environmental organizations contend the policy change represents one of the most consequential revisions to endangered species protections in decades, arguing that it undermines one of the law’s central mechanisms for safeguarding wildlife by limiting the government’s authority to address habitat destruction before species are directly killed or injured.
The plaintiffs include some of the nation’s largest conservation organizations, among them the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and several other environmental advocacy groups represented by the nonprofit legal organization Earthjustice.
In their complaint, the organizations argue that the agencies’ decision violates the plain language of the Endangered Species Act, ignores decades of legal precedent and constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
According to the lawsuit, Congress intended the Endangered Species Act to protect not only individual animals but also the habitats essential to their survival. The plaintiffs argue that removing the longstanding definition of harm fundamentally alters the statute’s purpose by making it substantially more difficult to prevent activities that destroy breeding grounds, feeding areas and shelter before wildlife populations suffer irreversible declines.
For decades, federal regulations have interpreted the Act’s prohibition against the “take” of endangered species to include habitat modification or degradation when those actions significantly impair essential behavioral patterns and ultimately result in injury or death to protected wildlife.
That interpretation has enabled federal agencies to regulate logging, mining, urban development, water diversion and other activities that may not directly kill animals but can destroy the ecosystems upon which threatened species depend.
The Trump administration, however, concluded that a standalone regulatory definition of harm is unnecessary because the statute itself already prohibits unlawful takes of endangered wildlife. Under the agencies’ revised interpretation, habitat degradation by itself would generally no longer constitute an illegal take unless it directly involves affirmative actions against individual animals.
The administration’s latest action reflects its broader effort to reduce federal regulatory authority over land use and environmental protection, arguing that previous interpretations expanded the reach of the Endangered Species Act beyond what Congress originally intended.
Tuesday’s lawsuit adds to a growing list of legal challenges confronting the administration’s environmental agenda during Trump’s second term. Since returning to office, the administration has rolled back numerous climate and conservation policies, including reducing federal support for clean energy development and rescinding scientific findings established during the Obama administration that identified climate change as a threat to public health.
The lawsuit names the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as defendants. The Interior Department oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, while the National Marine Fisheries Service operates under the Commerce Department through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Neither department immediately responded to requests for comment following the filing of the lawsuit.
The legal dispute centers on the meaning of a single word that has played a pivotal role in endangered species enforcement for decades. Environmental groups argue that the ordinary meaning of “harm” necessarily includes destruction of habitat when such actions prevent wildlife from feeding, breeding or finding shelter.
According to the complaint, existing federal regulations properly define harm as “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”
The plaintiffs argue that this interpretation reflects both the text and purpose of the Endangered Species Act, which Congress enacted in 1973 to halt the extinction of imperiled plants and animals through comprehensive habitat conservation.
The organizations also rely heavily on legal precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that the Court affirmed the broader interpretation of harm in its landmark 1995 decision Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, which upheld the government’s authority to regulate habitat destruction under the Endangered Species Act.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that habitat modification can constitute an unlawful take when it foreseeably results in injury or death to protected wildlife. Conservation advocates say the decision has served as a cornerstone of endangered species enforcement for nearly three decades.
The plaintiffs accuse the Trump administration of abandoning that established precedent in favor of a narrower interpretation advocated by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion in the 1995 case.
Scalia argued that an unlawful take should require an affirmative act directed immediately and intentionally at a particular animal rather than indirect consequences resulting from habitat destruction. Environmental organizations contend the administration has effectively adopted that minority legal view despite the Supreme Court’s majority ruling to the contrary.
Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups, said protecting wildlife habitat remains fundamental to the Endangered Species Act’s effectiveness.
“Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act,” Boyles said in a statement. “The Trump administration repeal violates the core language of the statute and decades of legal precedent.”
The outcome of the lawsuit could carry broad implications for conservation policy across the United States. Habitat loss remains the leading cause of species decline worldwide, according to conservation scientists, making habitat protection one of the most significant legal tools available for preserving biodiversity.
If the administration’s revised interpretation ultimately survives judicial review, federal agencies may face greater difficulty regulating development projects that threaten endangered species through habitat destruction rather than direct physical harm. Environmental groups argue such a shift could weaken protections for hundreds of species whose survival depends on preserving increasingly fragmented ecosystems.
Industry groups and property rights advocates have long argued that previous interpretations of the Endangered Species Act imposed excessive regulatory burdens on landowners and infrastructure projects by expanding federal oversight over private property. They have generally supported efforts to narrow the law’s reach, arguing that conservation objectives should be balanced with economic development.
The Seattle case is expected to become another closely watched legal battle over the future of U.S. environmental policy as courts continue to determine how far federal agencies can go in reshaping long-established interpretations of landmark conservation laws. Whatever the outcome, the litigation is likely to influence how endangered species protections are enforced for years to come, particularly as policymakers continue debating the balance between environmental conservation and economic development.
More in Trump administration
- U.S. outreach to potential Netanyahu rivals signals growing political recalibration amid strained Washington–Tel Aviv relations and regional tensions.
- The 80-year-old U.S. president says he earned a perfect score on another cognitive assessment while criticizing a new book that raises concerns about his age and stamina.
- Expedited immigration hearings raise concerns over legal access and child welfare.
