livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Supreme Court Limits Federal Power to Designate Private Land as Protected Habitat
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to timber company Weyerhaeuser Co and other landowners seeking to limit the federal government's power to designate private land as protected habitat for endangered species in a property rights case involving a warty amphibian called the dusky gopher frog.
The court, in a 8-0 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a 2016 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had favored the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finding the lower court gave the government too much leeway. The justices sent the case back to the 5th Circuit lower to reconsider.
In 2012, the agency decided to include private land where the frog does not currently live as critical habitat, potentially putting restrictions on future development opportunities. Weyerhaeuser harvests timber on the Louisiana land in question and was backed in the case by fellow landowners and business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The frog, found only in southern Mississippi, also previously inhabited Louisiana and Alabama. The U.S. government identified the Louisiana land partly owned by Weyerhaeuser, which is based in Washington state, as meeting the criteria for the frog's habitat under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Roberts wrote that the appeals court's broad definition of what can be defined as "critical habitat" under the Endangered Species Act was incorrect, with chief justice making clear that there are limits on the scope of government authority to make such determinations.
The chief justice also said the challengers should be allowed to contest whether the government conducted a rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits when designating the land as critical habitat. Weyerhaeuser has said that, among other things, the government did not account for the costs of planting pine trees that would be required for the frogs to flourish.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether land that needs modifications to support a protected species, like the property in question, can constitute habitat, meaning the ruling may be limited in its impact on other similar cases.
Supreme Court Limits Federal Power to Designate Private Land as Protected Habitat
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to timber company Weyerhaeuser Co and other landowners seeking to limit the federal government's power to designate private land as protected habitat for endangered species in a property rights case involving a warty amphibian called the dusky gopher frog.
The court, in a 8-0 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a 2016 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had favored the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finding the lower court gave the government too much leeway. The justices sent the case back to the 5th Circuit lower to reconsider.
In 2012, the agency decided to include private land where the frog does not currently live as critical habitat, potentially putting restrictions on future development opportunities. Weyerhaeuser harvests timber on the Louisiana land in question and was backed in the case by fellow landowners and business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The frog, found only in southern Mississippi, also previously inhabited Louisiana and Alabama. The U.S. government identified the Louisiana land partly owned by Weyerhaeuser, which is based in Washington state, as meeting the criteria for the frog's habitat under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Roberts wrote that the appeals court's broad definition of what can be defined as "critical habitat" under the Endangered Species Act was incorrect, with chief justice making clear that there are limits on the scope of government authority to make such determinations.
The chief justice also said the challengers should be allowed to contest whether the government conducted a rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits when designating the land as critical habitat. Weyerhaeuser has said that, among other things, the government did not account for the costs of planting pine trees that would be required for the frogs to flourish.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether land that needs modifications to support a protected species, like the property in question, can constitute habitat, meaning the ruling may be limited in its impact on other similar cases.
Supreme Court Limits Federal Power to Designate Private Land as Protected Habitat
