Twenty States Sue Over Trump Rules Narrowing Species Protections
Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed two federal lawsuits on September 9, 2026, challenging Trump administration revisions to Endangered Species Act regulations just days before one of the changes takes effect.
The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 3:26-cv-10071. The coalition includes California, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
One lawsuit challenges the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service decision to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm.” A second challenges revisions involving future protections for threatened species and the process for excluding areas from critical-habitat designations.
What takes effect September 14
The harm-rule rescission was published July 14, 2026, in the Federal Register at 91 Fed. Reg. 43300. It takes effect September 14, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The rescinded definition had treated significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife as a form of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. The final rule removes that definition from the regulations.
The Interior Department says the change better follows the statutory text and leaves in place prohibitions on directly killing or injuring listed wildlife, as well as existing permits and incidental-take statements. It says the rule is intended to reduce permitting burdens and compliance costs for landowners, businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments.
What the states allege
The states argue that removing the habitat-related definition narrows Section 9 protections, conflicts with the Endangered Species Act and relevant court precedent, and was adopted without the environmental review they say is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. They also allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In the complaint, the states say they spend money on species monitoring, habitat protection and recovery programs and may face greater conservation, permitting and administrative responsibilities if federal habitat protections are reduced. They also point to species whose ranges cross state lines and to state reliance on federal protections for projects and public resources.
Those claims are allegations in the litigation, not findings by the court.
Separate changes for threatened species and habitat
The agencies announced two additional regulatory revisions on July 17, 2026. One removes the future use of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s blanket Section 4(d) rule for newly listed threatened species. Under the revised approach, future threatened species would generally receive protections tailored to each species rather than automatically receiving the same broad prohibitions that apply to endangered species.
The Fish and Wildlife Service says the change does not alter protections for species that are already listed as threatened. Instead, future listings would be handled through species-specific rules.
The agencies also revised the process for excluding areas from critical-habitat designations. The service says exclusions may be considered when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, so long as the exclusion would not lead to extinction. The states challenge those revisions as well.
What the administration says
The Interior Department describes the rules as corrections to what it considers regulatory overreach. Its position is that the revisions follow the Endangered Species Act’s text, reduce uncertainty and account for economic, national-security and other impacts in critical-habitat decisions.
The administration has not said the changes eliminate Endangered Species Act protections. The central dispute is how broadly habitat damage should be treated as prohibited harm, how future threatened species should be protected and how exclusions from critical-habitat designations should be evaluated.
What happens next
The September 9 filings begin federal court review but do not automatically stay or suspend the rules. The complaint says the states intend to seek coordination with two earlier cases involving the harm-rule rescission. The record reviewed for this article does not establish that a court has issued a stay or injunction.
The next important developments could include motions for preliminary relief, court orders about related cases, agency implementation guidance and rulings on the states’ statutory and procedural claims. Unless a court orders otherwise, the harm-rule rescission’s September 14 effective date remains in place.
The litigation could affect how federal agencies, states, landowners and project sponsors evaluate habitat damage, threatened-species protections and critical-habitat exclusions nationwide.
Key sources
- State of California v. Burgum complaint, filed Sept. 9, 2026
- FWS final rule rescinding the ESA harm definition
- Reuters report carried by KSL
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.