The evolving interpretation of the term “harm” under the Endangered Species Act is coming under scrutiny in the wake of the Chevron era, setting the stage for potential legal confrontations. Post-administrative changes initiated during the Trump era, concerning what constitutes “harm” to endangered species, may prompt courts to reassess longstanding statutory understandings. The act prohibits actions that “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” threatened or endangered species. Traditionally, “harm” has been construed to include unintended consequences such as ecosystem degradation, enabling governmental bodies and environmental organizations to impede activities like logging.
This prospective judicial review arises from an attempted overhaul of the interpretation that agencies and courts have adhered to over time. The case could provide the judiciary with an opportunity to delineate the extent of regulatory authority post-Chevron, potentially impacting environmental protection enforcement. Legal analysts and scholars are closely monitoring these developments as they may reshape the legal landscape surrounding habitat conservation.
Additional insights into this legal development are accessible through the original report by Taylor Mills and Bobby Magill, available at Bloomberg Law.