Judge invalidates Trump’s Endangered Species Act changes
Rox Laird
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge sided with several environmental groups Monday, saying federal agencies violated the text of the Endangered Species Act when revisions were made to the bedrock law during President Donald Trump’s first term.
In a 41-page order, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar vacated four of the challenged provisions — reverting three to its pre-Trump text and one to a 2024 version — and said the Department of the Interior’s changes contradicted the text, and were unlawful or arbitrary and capricious.
“The agency’s errors are serious. Its regulations contradict the text of the Endangered Species Act and undercut the efficacy of Section 7 consultation in protecting threatened or endangered wildlife and marine life,” Tigar, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote.
Suing under the Administrative Procedure Act in 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians said six “reforms” following a Trump executive order were factually inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act.
They also claimed the Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Marine Fisheries Services didn’t perform their obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act, because the services did not prepare an environmental impact statement before making the changes.
“Extinction is forever, and today’s ruling strikes down regulations that deprived vulnerable species of a last chance at survival,” Ben Levitan, Earthjustice attorney said in an email to Courthouse News. “This ruling sends a strong signal to the Trump administration that its pending plans to further weaken the rules will violate the law.”
During the first Trump administration, the president unveiled a series of “improvements” to the Nixon-era legislation, which officials claimed would eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining critical safeguards for threatened species.
The new rules would have allowed economic factors to be considered in species listing decisions. They would have also made it easier to eliminate protections for species thought to be extinct by removing a requirement that scientific data “substantiate” delisting decisions.
One of the vacated provisions includes an edit of the 2019 regulatory text under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to say required effects “would not occur but for the proposed action and [are] reasonably certain to occur” about what may happen to critical habitat for endangered species.
Tigar agreed with the plaintiffs that it is the federal government’s “obligation to assess the likelihood of jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification of their habitat.”
The plaintiffs also challenged the re-wording of “reasonably certain” — which has a higher threshold than “likely” used in the older provision — and one that allows more consideration for protection.
Tigar wasn’t swayed by the agencies’ explanation that simplification of the phrase wouldn’t affect consultations.
“In other words, the services justified the amendment by taking the position that it had no effect on the decision-making process. As set forth above, however, the effect was significant. ‘[T]he requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position. An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio,’” he wrote.
Tigar also sided with the environmentalists on a 2019 change to the definition of “destruction or adverse modification” to “a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.” The inclusion of “as a whole” inappropriately narrowed the scope of the statutory protection, Tigar found.
The judge also vacated the definitions of “effects of the action” and “destruction or adverse modification,” reinstating the versions in effect “before the problematic revisions were made in 2019.”
He also ruled that the agency could not sidestep its duty to request re-consultation because it wasn’t directly imposed through the act, but it was a statutory standard for more than 25 years. Tigar said the services should revert to the 2024 text.
However, he stopped short of vacating the defendant’s new language around concurrent designations of critical habitat.
“While the court is compelled by the plaintiffs’ argument that species not presently threatened by habitat loss may be harmed by the failure to designate habitat because of a diminished capacity for population recovery or through other mechanisms, the regulation is not inconsistent with this theory,” he said. “It does not compel or even necessarily allow the services to reach a not-prudent determination on the sole basis of a no-threat finding.”
Tigar denied the government’s request for both remand and a stay, noting the ongoing rulemaking process meant to be completed by 2027.
“Plaintiffs have identified a high likelihood of harm resulting from further delays in adjudication of the merits because of the weaker protections for listed species afforded by the challenged regulations,” he said. “A year’s worth of harm is worth avoiding.”
The conservationists filed an amended complaint in 2024, unhappy with the Biden administration’s efforts at reducing the scope of the Trump-era changes.
And on Monday, Ryan Shannon, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the continued fight was worth it.
“This is a great victory for endangered species across the country, from spotted owls to Florida panthers,” he said in an email to Courthouse News. “With this ruling, America’s endangered wildlife will see stronger protections for their critical habitat and federal agencies won’t be able to shirk their duties to ensure they don’t drive species to extinction.”
The Department of Justice declined a request for comment.