In a coordinated legal effort, attorneys general from 20 states plus the District of Columbia filed two lawsuits on Wednesday seeking to reinstate broader habitat protections for endangered wildlife that were rolled back under the Trump administration. The suits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argue that the new rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
What the lawsuits target
The first suit challenges the administration’s reinterpretation of the term “harm” in the Endangered Species Act. Under President Trump, federal agencies limited “harm” to actions that directly injure or kill an animal, abandoning the long‑standing view that destroying forests, streams or wetlands – essential for nesting, mating and raising young – also constitutes prohibited harm.
The second suit attacks two new rules that reshape the process for designating “critical habitat.” The rules lower protections for newly listed threatened species and make it easier for officials to decline to label certain lands as critical, effectively opening more land to development.
Administration’s defense
The Department of the Interior responded that it will “vigorously defend its authority” to manage endangered species under the new guidelines. Officials argue the revisions simply clarify statutory language and return decision‑making to the agencies that are best equipped to balance conservation with economic growth.
State leaders’ concerns
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, warned that the federal government’s attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act threatens habitats of orcas, sockeye salmon and other species that support local economies and cultural heritage. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, also a Democrat, called the rules a “destruction of longstanding regulatory protections” that could lead to further species decline and possible extinctions.
The lawsuits are joined by attorneys general from Maryland, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Legal basis
Plaintiffs contend that the agencies’ actions ignore the purpose and history of the Endangered Species Act, disregard numerous court rulings, and run counter to the law’s precautionary approach. By invoking the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the states argue the rulemaking process was unlawful and lacked required environmental review.
Why the issue matters locally
Many of the states involved rely on healthy ecosystems for tourism, fishing, and recreation. Restoring broader habitat protections could help preserve the natural resources that families and communities depend on for generations.
While the Trump administration emphasizes regulatory clarity and economic flexibility, the coalition of states underscores the need for a balanced approach that safeguards the nation’s natural heritage while supporting local economies.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
