Trump 45-era bid to weaken Endangered Species Act on thin ice

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge said Thursday he’s inclined to hand three environmental nonprofits summary judgment and halt efforts by the Trump administration to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar had a tone of contrition over how long it’s taken him to handle the lawsuit by the Center of Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians against the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

“I am wrestling with this,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “I should have reached the merits before. My prior conduct of this case has slowed it down. It’s Judge Tigar that has been evading review.”

The dispute started in 2019, when the first Trump administration 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.

The conservationists filed an amended complaint in 2024, unhappy with the Biden administration’s efforts at reducing the scope of the Trump-era changes.

Arguing for the conservationists on Thursday, attorney Benjamin Levitan said the government’s plan to use the “best possible” science when making assessments on listing endangered species is not beneficial. The “best available” science has been a long-practiced standard, he argued, which allows for determinations based on what’s possible and what will do the most good for an endangered animal.

Levitan pointed to the refusal to list wolverine, saying wolverines have the best chances of survival with a snow-covered habitat but climate change is making that habitat far less available. Under the current regulations, he said, the government would want a study to see if wolverines could survive without snow.

“The approach is catastrophic,” he said. “We have no studies of those conditions in recorded history; if we did it could be too late,” he said, adding the Endangered Species Act is designed generally to prevent “exactly that outcome.”

Additionally, the 2019 revisions changed the definitions of terms like “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat and “environmental baseline” to raise the bar for what is considered necessary for a species’ survival. The overhaul further lifts requirements that federal agencies be consulted to assess the impacts of land management plans on at-risk species.

Representing the government, attorneys John Martin and Angela Ellis refuted Levitan by saying the act allows for discretion by the agencies to change its language.

Martin pointed to Trump’s recent executive order to create “consistency” within government agencies includes how the Endangered Species Act is implemented. He said a draft of new rules are currently in interagency review, but due to the government shutdown the original deadline for a draft public viewing on Oct. 31 will be missed.

The government opposes the conservationists’ request to vacate the rule changes, and is instead pushing Tigar to remand for further tinkering — a request Levitan opposed.

“The services seek delay, to undertake a third round of rulemaking,” he said. “They are evading judicial review, they have had more than enough time, and counsel is in favor of a swift judicial decision.”

The Endangered Species Act protects 1,600 U.S. plant and animal species with millions of acres designated as critical habitat for their survival and recovery. Since its enactment in 1973, more than 99% of species listed as threatened or endangered have been saved from extinction.