back | home > society > policy > esa

The Endangered Species Act of 1973

Major Relevant Cases (Annotated)*

General Cases

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).

A project that had already progressed substantially before the discovery of a listed species on the site eventually led to amendments to the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations and to the creation of the Endangered Species Committee and an exemption process from section 7. More directly, this ruling determined that the TVA’s ignorance of the existence of the species at the project site did not excuse it from following the protocols required by the ESA; in addition, the idea that economic factors might be taken into account in complying with the ESA was flatly rejected, as was the idea that continued congressional funding of a project effectively exempted the project from ESA compliance.

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapt. Comms. for Ore., 515 U.S. 687 (1995)

The Supreme Court found that in addition to making it a crime to "take" a listed species, section 9 also prohibits the destruction of habitat of such a species. The legislative definitions of "take" and "harm" are sufficiently broad to include the degradation or destruction of a species’ habitat.

Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan, 758 F.Supp. 621 (W.D.Wash. 1991).

The court held that the secretary had violated the ESA by failing to designate critical habitat in a timely fashion and without extraordinary circumstances, stating that critical habitat designation "is a central component of the legal scheme developed by Congress to prevent the permanent loss of species." It continued, "Only under limited circumstances not demonstrated here may the [Fish & Wildlife] Service properly defer its habitat designation responsibilities." (at 629, cited in Coggins et al. 2001). See also Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) for a more recent decision upholding the necessity of critical habitat designation under the ESA and the extreme rarity of circumstances that would allow the Service to avoid designation.

Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985)

This case effectively establishes that violation of a major procedural requirement of the ESA (in this case, conducting a proper biological assessment to determine the likely impact of the proposed action on a listed species) is not trivial and therefore must result in the court halting the project until it comes into compliance.

Fire Related Cases

Sierra Club v. Yeutter. 926 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1991).

The rapid decline of the red-cockaded woodpecker had previously led a trial court to find the U.S. Forest Service in violation of sections 7 and 9 of the ESA as a result of its management practices, including even-aged harvesting for timber sales and suppression of all forest fires. This court of appeals supports this finding but finds that the district court then inappropriately constrained the USFS in developing a new management plan by severely limiting the acceptable outcomes of the planning and consultation process.

* Adapted in part from Weinberg (2001) and Coggins et al. (2001)

summary | flowchart | cases | document | references