Wednesday, July 29, 2026

The Plain Record

Neutral daily news — clear headlines, complete facts.

Legal

Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act Changes

Nine environmental groups have sued the Trump administration over its decision to rescind a 50-year-old regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act.

Sourced from Reuters
Published July 14, 2026 at 4:41 PM EDT
Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act Changes

The Facts

Who
Nine environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, against the U.S. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce.
What
Lawsuit challenging the rescission of the legal definition of "harm" regarding protected wildlife.
When
Tuesday, July 14, 2026
Where
Seattle, Washington
Why
The groups allege the administration's policy change illegally narrows protections for endangered species by excluding habitat degradation.

Nine environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a Seattle federal court on Tuesday. The complaint challenges a July 10 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to rescind a long-standing regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. The agencies previously stated that maintaining a separate definition of the term was unnecessary.

The plaintiffs, which include the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, allege that the removal of the definition violates the Endangered Species Act and departs from a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. They argue that the change excludes habitat degradation from being classified as an illegal "take" of protected wildlife. Legal representatives for the groups stated that the repeal ignores decades of legal precedent regarding the protection of animal habitats.

The lawsuit names Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as defendants, alongside their respective departments. The administration's move aligns with a narrower interpretation of the law previously suggested in judicial dissents, which argued that a "take" requires an intentional act directed at a specific animal. The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce did not provide immediate comment on the litigation.

This story was rewritten from reporting at Reuters. Read the original for full detail.

Summaries are written by The Plain Record to state the facts of a story plainly and without political slant. See our editorial standards, or report a correction.

← Back to the front page