Groups Sue Trump Over ESA ‘Harm’ Rule Change

Environmental groups and Native American tribes filed multiple lawsuits on Tuesday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to rescind a decades-old definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act — a move that critics say strips away the law’s most powerful tool for protecting wildlife habitat.

The lawsuits, filed in federal district court in Seattle and in U.S. District Court for Western Washington, target a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 14 that eliminates the regulatory definition of “harm” as including “significant habitat modification or degradation” that kills or injures listed species. The change, announced by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce on July 10, is set to take effect on September 14 unless blocked by a court.

The Core of the Conflict

For more than 50 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defined “harm” under the ESA to encompass habitat destruction that impairs essential behaviors like feeding, breeding, or seeking shelter. This interpretation, established in 1975 and upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, has been a cornerstone of species protection.

According to NPR, the Trump administration’s justification for the change rests on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and requires agencies to follow the “single best meaning of a statute” rather than deferring to their own interpretations.

“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a department press release. “This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”

The Lawsuits

Earthjustice, representing more than half a dozen environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians, filed suit arguing the rule change is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and Squaxin Island Tribe filed a separate lawsuit, highlighting the threat to chinook salmon — a species central to their treaty-reserved fishing rights in Puget Sound.

Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney, told NPR the agencies “haven’t explained themselves adequately,” adding that the change “goes against the fundamental purpose and spirit of the statute itself.”

Defenders of Wildlife also sent a Notice of Intent to Sue on July 14, with President and CEO Andrew Bowman stating that the administration’s interpretation “guts the ability of the Endangered Species Act and the federal government to protect the habitat of wildlife already at risk of extinction.”

Species at Risk

The rule change could have sweeping consequences for dozens of threatened and endangered species. Among those most vulnerable are Florida manatees, which depend on healthy seagrass beds; steelhead trout and chinook salmon, which require clean spawning gravel beds; red-cockaded woodpeckers, which nest in living pine trees; grizzly bears, whose recovery has relied on habitat protections; northern spotted owls; and Florida panthers.

As Montana Free Press reported, Chris Servheen, former grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, warned: “The whole idea of harm is the substance of habitat protection in the ESA. We wouldn’t have grizzly bears today if we didn’t have the harm definition for habitat.”

Legal and Historical Context

The Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1973 with overwhelming bipartisan support. The definition of “harm” as encompassing habitat modification was clarified in 1975 and withstood a major legal challenge in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Babbitt v. Sweet Home that habitat destruction does constitute harm under the law.

The Trump administration now argues that the 2024 Loper Bright decision fundamentally changes the legal landscape, requiring a narrower reading of the statute. Oil and petroleum groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, and the Associated General Contractors of America supported the rule change in public comments, arguing it would reduce regulatory burdens.

Tribal Treaty Rights at Stake

Steve Edwards, chairman of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, said in a statement reported by Cascadia Daily News: “We cannot save the ESA-listed chinook salmon that are a pillar of our Treaty rights and our cultural lifeways when the habitat they need to spawn, rear and grow is under attack. This new rule is anti-science.”

The tribal lawsuit also alleges that federal agencies violated the law by arbitrarily rejecting the Swinomish Tribe’s consultation request.

Broader Implications

Legal experts warn that the change could trigger a wave of litigation over individual projects, creating uncertainty for both developers and conservationists. Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental law at UC Berkeley, noted that habitat loss remains the primary driver of species extinction.

The rule change is part of a broader coordinated effort to reshape the ESA. Earlier this year, the Endangered Species Committee — known as the “God Squad” — voted to exempt oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from ESA restrictions. Additional proposed rules would alter the definition of “foreseeable future” for listing decisions and introduce economic considerations into habitat designations.

What’s Next

The cases now rest with the federal courts, which must weigh the 1995 Sweet Home precedent against the 2024 Loper Bright decision. Environmental groups are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the rule from taking effect on September 14. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for the future of wildlife conservation in the United States.

As WLRN reported, Alex Muir of the Center for Biological Diversity summed up the stakes: “The goal of the statute really is we want to see the species recover and thrive. It’s not until they’ve recovered that they can be delisted. And without habitat protections, delisting is going to be a really challenging goal to meet for any species that’s listed.”