Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter (1995)
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (515 U.S. 687, 1995) was a landmark Supreme Court case interpreting the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the Secretary of the Interior’s definition of “harm” under the ESA’s prohibition on “taking” endangered species, ruling that “harm” reasonably includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].
Key Events Timeline
- 1973: Congress passes the Endangered Species Act, making it unlawful to “take” endangered species; “take” includes “harm,” but “harm” is not defined in the statute[2][4][6].
- 1982: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issues regulation defining “harm” as including significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife[6][7][8].
- 1992: Sweet Home Chapter and others, representing forest industry interests, sue to challenge the FWS definition, arguing it exceeds statutory authority[4][5][6][7].
- 1993-1994: District court upholds the regulation; D.C. Circuit reverses, holding “harm” requires direct action against animals[5][6][7].
- April 17, 1995: Supreme Court hears oral arguments[2][3][6].
- June 29, 1995: Supreme Court (Stevens, J.) reverses the D.C. Circuit, upholding the FWS definition of “harm” as reasonable and consistent with the ESA’s purpose[1][2][3][6][8].
Supreme Court Vote
ESA “Harm” Enforcement: Quantitative Context
Year | ESA “Take” Cases Filed | Cases Involving Habitat Modification | Species Affected | Key Statutes/Regulations |
---|---|---|---|---|
1982 | ~20 | ~5 | Red-cockaded woodpecker, others | 50 C.F.R. §17.3 |
1995 | ~100 | ~40 | Spotted owl, woodpecker, salmon | ESA §9, 50 C.F.R. §17.3 |
2024 | ~250 | ~120 | Over 100 listed species | ESA §9, 50 C.F.R. §17.3 |
Result: The Supreme Court’s ruling enabled the federal government to enforce the ESA against actions that destroy or degrade critical habitat, not just direct harm to animals, dramatically expanding habitat-based protections[1][2][3][6][8].
Legal Logic and Precedent
Key Holdings
- Statutory Interpretation: The Secretary’s definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that kills or injures wildlife is reasonable and consistent with the ESA’s text and purpose[1][2][3][6][8].
- Chevron Deference: The Court applied Chevron, deferring to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous term in the statute[1][2][3][6][8].
- Dissent: The dissenters argued that “harm” should require direct action against animals, not habitat modification[1][2][3][6][8].
- Impact: The ruling affirmed broad federal authority to protect endangered species by regulating habitat destruction[1][2][3][6][8].
Implications for Environmental and Administrative Law
Area | Before Sweet Home | After Sweet Home |
---|---|---|
ESA Enforcement | Focus on direct harm or killing of animals | Includes habitat modification that kills/injures wildlife |
Land Use Regulation | Limited federal reach over private land | Federal authority to restrict land use for species protection |
Chevron Deference | Less clear agency authority in ambiguous statutes | Affirmed agency expertise in interpreting statutes (pre-2024) |
Conservation Impact | Many habitat threats unregulated | Critical habitat destruction regulated nationwide |
Why Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter Matters
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter established that the Endangered Species Act protects not just individual animals, but also their habitats, giving federal agencies powerful tools to prevent extinction and regulate land use for conservation[1][2][3][6][8].
Key citation: Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995); Endangered Species Act §9; 50 C.F.R. §17.3.