What’s The “Harm?" ESA Rulemaking after Loper Bright

FedSoc Forums

Content provided by The Federalist Society. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by The Federalist Society or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

8d ago 56:48

MP3•Episode home

In April, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to rescind a regulation defining the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against “harm” to an endangered species to include destruction and modification of habitat. That regulation was previously upheld by the Supreme Court under Chevron in Sweet Home v. Babbitt, over a sharp dissent by Justice Scalia accusing the agency of imposing “unfairness to the point of financial ruin—not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use.” Citing Loper Bright’s overturning of Chevron, the Service proposes to rescind this regulation and adopt Justice Scalia’s opinion as the best reading of the statute. This would substantially curtail regulation of habitat, the loss of which is purportedly the leading threat to endangered species. Join this FedSoc Forum in discussing this proposal, its interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and the effect of Loper Bright on agencies’ modification of regulations previously upheld under Chevron.
Featuring:
Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center

1033 episodes

#Supreme Court #News #Politics #Federalist Society