August, 21 2019, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Liz Trotter, Earthjustice, etrotter@earthjustice.org, 305-332-5395
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, ngreenwald@biologicaldiversity.org, 503-484-7495
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org, 804-519-8449
Kari Birdseye, Natural Resources Defense Council, kbirdseye@nrdc.org, 415-875-8243
Kati Schmidt, National Parks Conservation Association, kschmidt@npca.org, 415-847-1768
Taylor Jones, WildEarth Guardians, tjones@wildearthguardians.org, 720-443-2615
Gwen Dobbs, Defenders of Wildlife, gdobbs@defenders.org, 202-772-0269
Kirsten Peek, The Humane Society of the United States, kpeek@humanesociety.org, 301-548-7793
Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration Attack on Endangered Species Act
Environmental Groups Head to Court Over Trump-Bernhardt’s Extinction Plan
WASHINGTON
Environmental and animal protection groups today sued the Trump administration over its new regulations that dramatically weaken the Endangered Species Act. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, WildEarth Guardians, and the Humane Society of the United States.
Today's lawsuit makes three claims against the Trump administration's new rules:
1)The Trump administration failed to publicly disclose and analyze the harms and impacts of these rules, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act;
2)The administration inserted new changes into the final rules that were never made public and not subject to public comment, cutting the American people out of the decision-making process.
3)The administration violated the language and purpose of the Endangered Species Act by unreasonably changing requirements for compliance with Section 7, which requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the existence of any species listed, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat of any listed species.
This is the first set of claims in what will be a larger legal challenge. The same plaintiff group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue yesterday on additional claims related to ESA Section 4, including the new rule injecting economic considerations into listing decisions and the rule eliminating automatic protections for newly-listed threatened species.
"Nothing in these new rules helps wildlife, period. Instead, these regulatory changes seek to make protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species harder and less predictable. We're going to court to set things right," said Kristen Boyles, Earthjustice attorney.
"Trump's rules are a dream-come-true for polluting industries and a nightmare for endangered species," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Scientists around the world are sounding the alarm about extinction, but the Trump administration is removing safeguards for the nation's endangered species. We'll do everything in our power to stop these rules from going forward."
"The new rules move the Endangered Species Act dangerously away from its grounding in sound science that has made the Act so effective -- opening the door to political decisions couched as claims that threats to species are too uncertain to address," said Karimah Schoenhut, Sierra Club staff attorney. "In the face of the climate crisis, the result of this abandonment of responsibility will be extinction."
"We stand in unwavering defense of the Endangered Species Act, which the Trump administration is attempting to dismantle in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens wildlife globally," said Bart Melton, Wildlife Program Director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "The new regulations are particularly bad news for candidates for protections, including the elusive Sierra Nevada Red Fox, with habitat inYosemite and Lassen Volcano National Parks. This administration is clearly placing the interests of oil and gas development above America's national park wildlife. Interior Secretary Bernhardt has onlyconfirmed our concerns over his priorities and strengthened our resolve to fight back, by taking legal action to reverse this decision."
"In the midst of an unprecedented extinction crisis, the Trump administration is eviscerating our most effective wildlife protection law," said Rebecca Riley, legal director of the nature program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "These regulatory changes will place vulnerable species in immediate danger--all to line the pockets of industry. We are counting on the courts to step in before it's too late."
"In the face of a global extinction crisis, the Trump administration has undercut the Endangered Species Act, one of our most successful environmental laws. This action is clearly intended to benefit developers and extractive industries, not species, and we are going to court to stop it. The overwhelming majority of Americans want to ensure that threatened and endangered species are protected for future generations," said Senior Endangered Species Counsel for Defenders of Wildlife Jason Rylander.
"This administration has a clear pattern of climate change denial and hostility to conservation," said Taylor Jones, endangered species advocate at WildEarth Guardians. "We're not going to let it stand. We'll see them in court."
"The public overwhelmingly supports the ESA, which has succeeded in saving humpback whales, bald eagles, and more than 99 percent of listed species from the brink of extinction," said Nicholas Arrivo, Staff Attorney for the Humane Society of the United States. "This package of regulatory changes prioritizes industry profits over the very existence of imperiled species."
Background on the Endangered Species Act:
The Endangered Species Act aspires to prevent extinction, recover imperiled plants and animals, and protect the ecosystems on which they depend. For over 40 years, the Endangered Species Act has been a remarkably successful conservation law that protects imperiled species and their habitats. In the years since it was enacted, a remarkable 99 percent of listed species including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and the gray wolf have been spared from extinction.
Not only is the Endangered Species Act an effective law, it is also immensely popular. A 2015 Tulchin Research poll showed that 90 percent of voters support the Act, including 96 percent of self-identified liberals and 82 percent of self-identified conservatives. A 2018 study by researchers at The Ohio State University found that roughly four out of five Americans support the Endangered Species Act. Over 800,000 people sent comments to the federal agencies opposing these changes.
U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is a former lobbyist for oil and gas companies, big agriculture and other special interests. Bernhardt oversaw the rollbacks to this critical conservation law.
The new regulations are an unprecedented weakening of protections for endangered species. Among other things, they allow consideration of economic factors in decisions about whether species are listed as threatened or endangered, strip newly listed threatened species of automatic protection, weaken protection of species' critical habitat, and relax consultation standards that are meant to ensure federal agencies avoid jeopardizing species' survival.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Biden Veto Expected After 4 Senate Dems, Sinema Help GOP Gut Water Protections
"The senators who voted to remove these protections shamefully put corporate profits over our right to clean drinking water, healthy water-reliant economies, and sustainable water supply," said one critic.
Mar 29, 2023
U.S. President Joe Biden's vow to veto a Republican-led resolution that would gut his administration's water protections did not stop four Democratic senators and one ex-Democrat from helping the GOP send the measure to his desk on Wednesday.
Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jon Tester (Mont.) along with now-Indepedent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) joined with all Republicans present to pass H.J. Res. 27 in a 53-43 vote.
Passed by the GOP-controlled House early this month mostly along party lines—nine Democrats supported the measure while just one Republican opposed it—the resolution takes aim at regulations finalized by the Biden administration in late December.
"A majority of senators elected to represent the American people have chosen to side with corporate polluters."
Reversing one of many rollbacks under former President Donald Trump, under the Biden rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) that are protected under the Clean Water Act as "traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters."
In an early March policy statement threatening what is now expected to be Biden's second veto, the White House explained that "H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a clear 'waters of the United States' definition. The increased uncertainty would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities."
"Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain exempt or not," the White House warned. "Construction crews would be left wondering whether their waterfilled gravel pits remain exempt or not."
"Compared to the kind of uncertain, fragmented, and watered-down regulatory system that H.J. Res. 27 might compel," the White House added, "the final rule will secure substantial and valuable benefits each year in critical flood protections, enhanced water quality, and the treasured recreational activities—fishing, swimming, boating, and more—that fill the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of U.S. households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams."
\u201cGood thing @POTUS plans to veto \ud83d\udc4e this misguided resolution. We're grateful to #ChesBay champ @SenatorCardin and @EPWCmte Chairman @SenatorCarper for forcefully speaking against it.\u201d— Chesapeake Bay Foundation (@Chesapeake Bay Foundation) 1680118199
If they all choose to run, Manchin, Rosen, Sinema, and Tester, are up for reelection next year. Cortez Masto, who narrowly won reelection in November, told the Nevada Appeal on Wednesday that the Silver State's "unique water needs are unlike any other state, and this administration's rule forces our local governments, farmers, ranchers, and businesses to jump through unnecessary red tape."
As E&E Newsnoted Wednesday:
One vulnerable Democrat facing a tough reelection campaign opted to stick with his party. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly's vote had previously been an open question, but during a recent hearing, he repeatedly questioned the use of the Congressional Review Act to target WOTUS.
The CRA allows for a simple majority to overturn recent rules, but also hinders the government's ability to pursue a similar rule. Kelly expressed concern the resolution might unravel any efforts to make Clean Water Act enforcement suitable to states like his.
"Restoring critical protections for waters across the country should be a simple and easily supported effort. Yet a majority of senators elected to represent the American people have chosen to side with corporate polluters and play politics with one of our most critical natural resources," declared Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous. "This is inexcusable."
"Access to clean, safe water is a human right and should never be determined by where someone lives, how much money they make, or the color of their skin," he said. "The Sierra Club has and will continue to work with our allies to protect our waters, and we call President Biden to swiftly veto the WOTUS Congressional Review Act resolution."
Earthjustice senior legislative counsel Julián González similarly called out the senators and called for a swift veto, while also warning that "protections for clean water are constantly under attack from polluting industries, and this will not be the last Republican attempt to significantly weaken the Clean Water Act during this Congress."
\u201c@POTUS How did we get here? Industry has been hellbent on pursuing deregulatory policies that are politically unpopular and benefit very few, but want people to believe that it was done in their best interest. \n\nSimply put: they spread disinformation. https://t.co/oBa3GYgeuU\u201d— Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) 1680122201
"The Clean Water Restoration Rule is grounded in the scientific consensus of how waters and wetlands are hydrologically connected and incredibly important to protect," González stressed. "This is a welcome step forward from the Trump administration's pro-polluter dirty water."
"Unfortunately, instead of relying on the science, Republicans—and some Democrats—are choosing to ally themselves with dirty industries whose mission is to eliminate any and all meaningful protections for our waters," he continued. "The senators who voted to remove these protections shamefully put corporate profits over our right to clean drinking water, healthy water-reliant economies, and sustainable water supply."
"We urge members of Congress who supported this resolution to reflect on why they are tossing aside concerns of people from all walks of life who value our waters in order to support those who would decimate the Clean Water Act if they had their way," González added. "Finally, we applaud President Biden for indicating he will reject this effort and veto this resolution when it reaches his desk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Idaho GOP Invents 'Abortion Trafficking' Crime to Block Minors From Care
"Human trafficking is a terrible crime where one person takes another person against their will," said one state Democrat. "It is very different from helping a young woman seek medical care without her parents' knowledge."
Mar 29, 2023
Reproductive rights advocates and Democratic state lawmakers in Idaho on Wednesday condemned a Republican proposal to create a new crime in the state using the invented term "abortion trafficking," which would criminalize people who help minors to obtain out-of-state abortion care.
The bill (H.B. 242) is widely expected to pass in the state Senate and easily passed in the state House earlier this month on a party-line vote, with 57 Republicans supporting the proposal and and 12 Democrats opposing it. GOP Gov. Brad Little, who has strongly supported the state's abortion ban, is expected to sign the legislation.
H.B. 242 would establish so-called "abortion trafficking" as a new crime and would restrict minors' ability to travel to get abortion care without parental consent.
Any adult who, "with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug" for a minor could face felony charges and up to five years in prison.
Family members of a minor who obtains an abortion across state lines—or the person who impregnated the minor—would be permitted to sue the providers who helped facilitate the procedure for a minimum of $20,000.
Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D-19), toldThe Washington Post that the legislation "cheapens the term 'human trafficking' and that's shameful."
"Human trafficking is a terrible crime where one person takes another person against their will," Wintrow added. "It is very different from helping a young woman seek medical care without her parents' knowledge."
Last August, one of the nation's most restrictive anti-abortion laws went into effect in Idaho, two months after the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy—before many people know they are pregnant—with exceptions in cases involving rape or incest or when the pregnant person's life is in danger. Exceptions to save a pregnant person's life have already resulted in medical providers refusing to provide care in cases when the patient is growing progressively sicker and their fetus has no chance of survival.
Women's March said the bill is likely "the first of many fascist, unconstitutional bills" that will seek to limit pregnant people's ability to travel for abortion care.
\u201cUPDATE: Idaho is about to become the first state to restrict interstate travel for an abortion. The GOP isn't stopping with Dobbs \u2014 now they're coming for our right to travel with the first of many fascist, unconstitutional bills.\u201d— Women's March (@Women's March) 1680106725
Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, the Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, told lawmakers this week that the legislation will place many vulnerable young pregnant people in harm's way.
"For young people living in abusive households, disclosing sexual activity or a pregnancy can trigger physical or emotional abuse, including direct, physical or sexual violence, or being thrown out of the home," said DelliCarpini-Tolman.
Republicans in the state are seeking to further criminalize abortion care days after the state's northernmost hospital announced it will soon close its obstetrics department, citing staffing issues that have following Idaho's abortion ban.
On Tuesday, Republicans in the state announced they would not consider a bill to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage.
"Last year, legislators said they wanted to pass policies to support the health of mothers," Hillarie Hagan, health policy associate for the advocacy group Idaho Voices for Children, told News From the States, "and now they're about to leave town without passing House Bill 201, which would've done just that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Great Start': Peace Advocates Cheer Senate Repeal of Iraq War Authorization
"A larger and far more consequential challenge remains: repealing the 2001 AUMF which authorized the global war on terror," said one activist.
Mar 29, 2023
Peace campaigners cheered Wednesday's vote by the U.S. Senate to repeal the authorizations for the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, while calling on the House of Representatives to follow suit.
The Senate voted 66-30 in favor of a bill to rescind the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF), with 18 Republican senators crossing the aisle to support the legislation, which now heads to the House. An amendment by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would have empowered the president to attack Iran was defeated on Tuesday.
It is uncertain if the lower chamber's GOP leadership will take up the measure. In 2021, the Democrat-led House passed a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, with the support of 49 Republican lawmakers. The Biden administration supports the repeal.
"The people of the United States deserve elected leaders that will end our endless wars."
The more sweeping 2001 AUMF greenlighting then-President George W. Bush's global war against terrorism—which has been waged in at least eight countries at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives—remains in place and unendangered. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the author of the 2021 repeal bill, was the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 AUMF.
"Today, the Senate made the belated but critical decision to repeal the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs," Win Without War government relations director Eric Eikenberry said in a statement. "This appropriately comes days after the 20-year anniversary of the Iraq War—the horrific end result of Congress handing then-President Bush a blank check to wage war at the expense of the people of Iraq and the United States."
\u201c"Today\u2019s vote begins the process of accountability the war deserved long ago. We welcome this vote... and we thank @timkaine and @SenToddYoung for so doggedly pushing for this outcome."\n\nFull statement on the Senate's AUMF repeal vote from @epeikenberry: https://t.co/HTzbAJi8zF\u201d— Win Without War (@Win Without War) 1680110106
"The Trump administration amply demonstrated the risks of leaving outdated military authorization on the books," Eikenberry continued, likely referring to the January 2020 drone assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was carried out under the AUMF.
Former presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both invoked the AUMF when the former launched, and the latter escalated, the U.S.-led coalition campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
"We cannot gamble again by allowing the next irresponsible and short-sighted president to abuse their executive power to destroy lives around the world," Eikenberry added. "We now call on the House of Representatives... to immediately take up repeal and send it to the president's desk. The Iraq War deserves justice and accountability, and the people of the United States deserve elected leaders that will end our endless wars."
\u201cThe Senate repealing the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs for Iraq is a great start. A larger and far more consequential challenge remains: repealing the 2001 AUMF which authorized the global war on terror. https://t.co/2Oeg57xmha @CarnegieEndow @CEIPStatecraft\u201d— Matt Duss (@Matt Duss) 1680113771
Common Defense political director Naveen Shah related that "as a veteran of the War in Iraq, I saw firsthand the utter devastation the war had on ordinary Iraqis, and the ordinary troops who were sent there."
"Keeping these war authorizations open after all these years is a sad reminder of our country's mistake," Shah argued. "We need to ensure it never happens again, and that begins with this repeal and continues by requiring congressional authorization, after a full public debate, before America ever sends our troops into harm's way again."
Bridget Moix, general secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, said that "Quakers know that war is not and never has been the answer. Not today. Not tomorrow. And certainly not 20 years ago."
"The 2002 Iraq AUMF, as we stated at the time, should have never been passed and signed into law," Moix continued. "A congressional repeal of the law is a vital step to help heal our country's addiction to war and end endless wars. What we can invest more in to build a safer world is peacebuilding and global cooperation."
"True peace is more than the absence of fighting. It is addressing the root causes of war and managing conflict nonviolently," she added. "As long as the U.S. can still attack and kill with impunity in Iraq, neither its people nor ours will know true peace."
Roughly 2,500 U.S. troops—over 4,000 of whom died during the invasion and occupation of Iraq—remain in the country today.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.