Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against President Donald Trump’s administration. The legal actions target new federal rules that critics argue illegally weaken the Endangered Species Act, a landmark 1973 conservation law.
Attorneys General File Two Lawsuits Challenging Endangered Species Act Rollbacks
The complaints were filed less than two months after the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce announced final regulations designed to make it easier for companies to develop sensitive lands that serve as habitats for endangered and threatened wildlife.
Legal Challenges Focus on Habitat Protections and Narrowed Definition of Harm
The first lawsuit challenges a rule that narrows the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. For decades, federal agencies interpreted harm to include the destruction or encroachment of habitats that animals depend on for nesting, mating, and raising young. Under the revised rule, activities such as mining and oil drilling are permitted in sensitive habitats as long as they are not directed immediately and intentionally at particular animals, even if those operations cause injury or death.
The second lawsuit targets a pair of additional rules. The first of these eliminates broad protections for newly threatened species unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues specific regulations. The second rule requires the government to consider business objections and potential economic burdens before declaring areas as critical habitats. According to the state complaints, these changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
State Leaders and Administration Officials Clash Over Regulatory Reach
State officials leading the litigation criticized the administration’s push to roll back environmental regulations. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown stated that the administration is attempting to undermine the law and the will of Congress. California Attorney General Rob Bonta added that the rules threaten integral regulatory protections and could lead to further species decline and extinctions.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the regulatory changes, arguing that the statute had previously been utilized to block projects, harm competitiveness, and disrupt the economy. An Interior Department spokesperson asserted that the lawsuits seek to defend regulatory overreach that expanded the law beyond congressional authority, vowing that the agency will vigorously defend its implementation of the statute according to its plain text.
Conservation History and Broader Policy Context
Enacted in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has historically been credited with helping restore populations of animals such as the bald eagle, California condor, grizzly bear, and humpback whale. The recent rule changes align with President Trump’s broader agenda to cut regulations that constrain American businesses and follow a 2024 Supreme Court decision reducing judicial deference to federal agency interpretations.
The lawsuits were led by the attorneys general of Washington, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, and were joined by representatives from the following jurisdictions:
- Arizona
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
Related reading