A coalition of seven industry groups representing farming, mining, and oil entities sued federal environmental agencies, challenging the former administration’s expansion of regulations under the Endangered Species Act. The groups call for a return to 2019 Trump-era regulations.
Takeaway: Several federal agencies, including groups that strive to protect the environment, are facing cuts under President Donald Trump’s initiatives.
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Case Type: Environmental Regulations
Lawyers: The plaintiffs are represented by Tyler Welti and Jay C. Johnson of Venable in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., respectively. Counsel has not yet appeared for the government defendants.
Liability Arguments: The plaintiffs include the American Petroleum Institute, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Home Builders, and National Mining Association, among others in the agriculture, energy, and construction sectors. They accuse the defendants, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the secretaries of the Department of Interior and Department of Commerce, of ignoring the statutory limits of the law. The changes removed the strict standard for evaluating whether unoccupied areas are essential to preserve an endangered species, allowing more leeway for government agencies to override the interests of the businesses, according to the complaint.
In 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service promulgated new rules under the Endangered Species Act, which was first enacted in the 1970s to combat the overhunting and overfishing of vital animal species on publicly owned lands. The new regulations brought under the Biden Administration exceeded authority by removing a two-step critical habitat designation process and improperly added “recovery” as a factor. The Trump-era two-step process maintained a limited government role of identifying “occupied” areas to conserve species before marking “unoccupied areas” that might intrude on the land.
Damages Arguments: The plaintiffs are seeking an order declaring the 2024 regulations to be unlawful and invalid, enjoining reliance on the new regulations, and reinstating the previous interpretation of the statute from 2019, which they argued was more accurate to the legislature’s intent.
What the lawyers are saying: Welti and Johnson have not responded to a request for comment from Law.com.
Representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Department of Interior and Department of Commerce have also not responded to requests for comment.
Radar scan: This week, Venable also brought a lawsuit in the District of Columbia against the Environmental Protection Agency for allegedly freezing a $1.87 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that was intended to support clean energy projects in low-income communities. Venable is representing Inclusiv, which reportedly made commitments to over 100 credit unions in 27 states to complete clean energy projects.
Caption: American Petroleum Institute v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
This complaint was first surfaced by Law.com Radar, ALM’s source for immediate alerting on just-filed cases in state and federal courts. Law.com Radar now offers state court coverage nationwide. Sign up today and be among the first to know about new suits in your region, practice area or client sector.