Why Trump’s move to gut the Endangered Species Act likely won’t hold up in court
On July 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of Interior formally rescinded the harm rule under the Endangered Species Act. This move removes specific protections that previously shielded millions of acres of habitat from destruction. For decades, federal law recognized that habitat degradation often acts as a death sentence for endangered species by preventing breeding, feeding, and sheltering. The removal of this rule marks a shift in how federal agencies manage land and wildlife conservation on nonfederal properties.
Legal experts note that the history of this law dates back to 1973. The Endangered Species Act was designed to halt species extinction regardless of the cost. A critical component of this framework is the prohibition of unauthorized takes, which the government has long defined to include significant habitat modification. When the Supreme Court reviewed this interpretation in 1995 in the Sweet Home case, the court upheld the harm rule by a 6-3 vote. The majority held that habitat destruction that results in injury or death is consistent with the statutory definition of harm.
The Trump administration justifies this reversal by citing the 2024 Loper Bright decision, which moved away from judicial deference to agency interpretations of law. The administration argues that the Supreme Court should now adopt the narrow interpretation once proposed by Justice Antonin Scalia, which limited harm to direct physical contact with an animal. This argument posits that habitat modification alone does not constitute a take.
However, legal challenges are already moving through the court system. Plaintiffs argue that the administration failed to follow required procedures, such as preparing an environmental impact statement or engaging in necessary consultations. Furthermore, critics point out that the Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling did not automatically invalidate prior cases decided under the previous judicial framework. Because over two-thirds of listed species depend on nonfederal land for survival, the outcome of these lawsuits will determine the future of habitat protection in the United States.