A coalition of environmental groups scored a win Monday in a long legal battle when a federal court in California tossed out a set of regulatory rollbacks that undercut Endangered Species Act protections.
The ruling comes after nearly a decade of legal combat that began under the first Trump administration to challenge how the federal government evaluated the risks to vulnerable species before advancing new projects.
The decision is also likely to hobble current efforts to further weaken the landmark species law, environmental groups said.
“This is a great victory for endangered species across the country, from spotted owls to Florida panthers,” said Ryan Shannon, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement following the 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,” Shannon said.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected four amendments to regulations under ESA Section 7, which requires agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries to understand how an agency action might affect a listed species or its habitat.
The amendments included changing the definition of when an action was an “adverse modification” that required protections for a species to go into effect. Another provision would have required FWS to accept agency mitigation measures, even if they did not include specific plans for how to protect a species affected by a project.
“The agency’s errors are serious,” said Judge Jon Tigar, writing the opinion for the court.
“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,” the judge wrote.
Tigar, an Obama appointee, also noted that vacating the amendments was “unlikely to be disruptive” since the agencies noted that a new rule was planned within a year.
This decision “simply allows the relevant pre-2019 provisions to control until that new final rule is promulgated,” he wrote. “The regulations that existed prior to the challenged revisions were in effect for a substantial period of time, such that the Services will be familiar with their provisions and how to apply them.”
The court also dismissed challenges to two other amendments to Section 4 regulations on critical habitat, after finding the groups did not show that the changes were unlawful.
Environmental groups said FWS and NOAA Fisheries would have to take the court’s ruling into account as the agencies complete new regulations under the ESA.
The Trump administration is proposing new rules that would mean newly threatened plant and animal species would not automatically receive protections from killing and trapping. The proposed changes would also narrow the definition of what is considered critical habitat for a species, among other changes.
The administration is also taking other actions that could put endangered species at risk.
A federal court has also cleared the way for the administration to convene its Endangered Species Committee — the so-called “God Squad” — on Tuesday to decide whether to override ESA protections for species like the critically endangered Rice’s whale in the Gulf of Mexico.
