ESA Habitat Rule Rollback Faces Fight

US Seeks Dismissal in Four Lawsuits Challenging ESA Habitat Rule Rollback

10/9/2026 | 10:07 AM CDT

By Todd Neeley , DTN Environmental Editor

Connect with Todd:

The Trump administration is asking a federal court to throw out four lawsuits challenging a key definition in the Endangered Species Act. (DTN file photo)

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- The Trump administration has asked a federal court to throw out four lawsuits that have challenged a rollback of a key Endangered Species Act policy, arguing in motions for summary judgement that federal wildlife agencies can no longer treat habitat destruction alone as "harm" to protected species.

In April 2025, the Trump administration issued a proposed rule that it later finalized to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" in the ESA as it relates to habitat modifications.

The outcome of the cases could have broader implications for agriculture and other industries when it comes to federal permits, consultations and ESA restrictions that are triggered by activities that affect habitats.

The U.S. has argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, use of the term "harm" as it relates to the "taking" of endangered species, "runs contrary to the best meaning" of the statutory definition.

In four separate lawsuits filed by the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, the state of California and other plaintiffs, and the Environmental Protection Information Center, the plaintiffs contend that habitat destruction is often the primary cause of species decline and that eliminating the "harm" definition was inconsistent with the ESA's purpose.

Summary judgement motions essentially ask a court to issue a ruling based on the administrative record and legal arguments without proceeding to trial.

The plaintiffs raise several claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, alleging the federal government failed to justify the policy changes and to assess the environmental effects.

U.S. attorneys filed two motions for summary judgement this week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where the cases are consolidated.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

In those motions, the federal government points to a recent Supreme Court decision that ended a key legal doctrine called the Chevron deference, as reason for rescinding the "harm" definition.

Chevron deference required that if statutory language is clear, agencies were required to follow the letter of the law. If wording and context in a statute were ambiguous, courts previously deferred to federal agencies' discretion.

"The Supreme Court's since-overruled Chevron doctrine deferred to certain agency interpretations of statutes, which led to the court's decision to uphold the prior regulatory definitions of 'harm' in the ESA," the U.S. said in its motions.

"After the Supreme Court's rejection of Chevron deference in its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises, the FWS and NMFS should interpret the statute according to its plain terms."

The Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the legal doctrine.

The federal government told the court the agencies' "properly concluded" that rescinding the "harm" definition was the "single best reading" of the term "take."

"Congress did not clearly authorize the services to regulate habitat under the guise of the ESA's 'take' prohibition," the U.S. said in its motions.

During the Biden administration, federal agencies continued reviewing pesticide registrations to ensure labels comply with the ESA as part of a legal settlement with environmental groups.

Legal settlements have played a significant role in how federal agencies comply with the ESA.

In April 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for Biological Diversity reached a proposed settlement on the center's lawsuit alleging the EPA failed to conduct an ESA review in setting Renewable Fuel Standard volumes in June 2022.

Groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity spoke out against the recission rule saying it would rescind nearly all habitat protections.

The ESA prohibits the "take" of endangered species by any person including individuals, government entities and corporations. The term has been further defined to cover actions that actually "harm" endangered species through "significant habitat modification or degradation."