20 States and D.C. Sue Over Trump ESA Rollback

Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on September 9, asking federal courts to overturn three rule changes affecting how the Endangered Species Act protects listed wildlife, threatened species and critical habitat.

The two lawsuits, filed by 21 attorneys general, could affect federal permitting and project reviews involving construction, drilling, mining, farming, logging, energy development and other land or water uses. The filings do not suspend the rules or automatically approve projects. They begin litigation over how federal agencies must evaluate habitat damage and other potential effects on protected species.

What the lawsuits challenge

One case challenges the Interior and Commerce departments’ July 10, 2026, decision to rescind a longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. That definition had treated significant habitat modification or degradation as potential harm when it could kill or injure protected wildlife.

The second case challenges two Fish and Wildlife Service rules. One ends automatic protections that have generally applied to newly listed threatened species unless the agency adopts species-specific regulations. The other changes how the agency evaluates requests to exclude land or water from critical-habitat designations, including the consideration of economic effects and regulatory burdens.

The states allege that all three actions violate the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. They are asking the courts to vacate the rules and restore the earlier protections.

The administration’s position

The Interior Department says rescinding the harm definition restores the statutory text of the Endangered Species Act, respects property rights and reduces regulatory burdens for landowners, businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments.

The department also says direct killing or injury of listed wildlife remains prohibited and that existing permits and incidental-take statements remain valid. The states dispute the administration’s interpretation, arguing that habitat destruction or degradation can indirectly kill or injure protected species even when a project does not directly strike, capture or kill an animal.

That disagreement is a central legal issue in the case. No court has yet resolved it in this litigation.

Why federal permits could be affected

The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries when an action they authorize, fund or carry out may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat. Agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.

Those requirements can arise during reviews of highways, pipelines, power facilities, mines, timber projects, water infrastructure, agricultural activity and other federally authorized or funded work. The lawsuits could change the arguments agencies, developers, states, local governments and conservation groups make during those reviews, depending on how the courts interpret the rules.

The immediate effect is legal uncertainty rather than a nationwide exemption from environmental review. Some projects may face different questions about whether habitat degradation qualifies as prohibited harm. Newly threatened species may not receive automatic protections unless the agency issues species-specific rules, and economic considerations may play a larger role in some critical-habitat exclusion decisions.

What happens next

The federal government will respond in the two cases. The states or other parties could also seek preliminary relief while the litigation proceeds, which could prompt early court decisions about whether the challenged rules remain in effect.

No final court ruling has been issued. The outcome could influence how federal agencies balance wildlife protections, development proposals and economic considerations under the Endangered Species Act nationwide.

Sources

• New York Attorney General filing announcement
• California Attorney General lawsuit announcement
• U.S. Department of the Interior harm-rule announcement
• EPA Summary of the Endangered Species Act
• The New York Times report on the lawsuits

Look for updates to this story

Related News

• Child care aid waitlists leave families waiting across much of U.S.
• Education Department makes evidence-based literacy a 2026 priority
• Labor Department sets national framework for pre-apprenticeships
• U.S. factory orders and shipments rose in July, Census says