ESA rollback unlikely to withstand court challenges
The Trump administration rescinded the ESA harm rule, removing habitat-protection language that had limited habitat loss for listed species. A veteran law professor argues the rollback is likely unlawful and unlikely to survive lawsuits that challenge procedural and statutory grounds, including NEPA, the ESA, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and that Sweet Home v. Babbit remains a controlling precedent despite the post-Chevron shift in Loper Bright. Environmental groups have already filed suits and may seek preliminary injunctions to block the rule while litigation proceeds. With over two-thirds of listed species relying on nonfederal habitat, the outcome could hinge on whether courts uphold Sweet Home without Chevron deference, potentially sending the case to the Supreme Court.
