Environmental Groups and Washington Tribes Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act Rule Change

On July 10, 2026, the Trump administration rescinded a 50-year-old Endangered Species Act rule, declaring that habitat degradation no longer constitutes an illegal "take" of wildlife. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum stated the change reduces regulatory burdens for landowners and businesses. In response, nine environmental groups and two Washington tribes filed separate lawsuits in Seattle federal court on July 14, 2026, arguing the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and threatens treaty-protected Chinook salmon.

ESA harm definition rescission

• ▪The Department of the Interior stated the rule change, effective September 14, 2026, would reduce permitting requirements and compliance costs for farmers, landowners, and energy producers
• ▪The Trump administration officially rescinded a more than 50-year-old definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act on July 10, 2026
• ▪The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service determined that maintaining a freestanding definition of "harm" is unnecessary and that habitat degradation does not qualify as an illegal "take" of wildlife

Environmental group lawsuits

• ▪Nine environmental groups, represented by Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit in Seattle federal court on July 14, 2026, challenging the Trump administration's rescission of the "harm" definition
• ▪The environmental plaintiffs, including the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that the rule change violates the Endangered Species Act's plain language and is arbitrary and capricious

Tribal community lawsuits

• ▪The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community's lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service violated the law by rejecting the tribe's consultation request
• ▪The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and the Squaxin Island Tribe filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington on July 14, 2026, over the Endangered Species Act rule change
• ▪The Swinomish and Squaxin Island Tribes allege the rule change will undermine recovery efforts for the federally listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound and Skagit River, which are protected under treaties

Industry support for rule change

• ▪Holly Hopkins of the American Petroleum Institute stated that the group remains committed to commonsense Endangered Species Act policies that protect wildlife and support American energy leadership
• ▪The American Petroleum Institute and the Associated General Contractors of America submitted comments supporting the proposal to rescind the "harm" definition to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens

Endangered Species Act history

• ▪The Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species at risk from commercial and development interests
• ▪The Endangered Species Act prohibited the "taking" of endangered species, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defined to include "harm" through the alteration or destruction of critical habitat

Babbitt v. Sweet Home precedent

• ▪Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in Babbitt v. Sweet Home, arguing that defining "harm" to include habitat modification was a "ruthless dilation of the word" and made nonsense of the term
• ▪In the 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that habitat modification constitutes "harm" under the Endangered Species Act