January, 13 2021, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Liz Trotter, Earthjustice, (305) 332-5395, etrotter@earthjustice.org
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495, ngreenwald@biologicaldiversity.org
Daniela Arellano, NRDC, (310) 434-2304, darellano@nrdc.org
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, (804) 519-8449, virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org
Gwen Dobbs, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0269, gdobbs@defenders.org
Jordan Rutter, American Bird Conservancy, (202) 888-7472, jerutter@abcbirds.org
Lawsuits Challenge Trump Administration's Latest Assaults on Endangered Species Act
New Regulations Strip Vital Protection From Imperiled Species’ Essential Recovery Habitat
HONOLULU
Earthjustice filed two lawsuits today in the District of Hawai'i in response to the outgoing administration's most recent attacks on the Endangered Species Act, the law that serves as the last safety net for animals and plants facing extinction.
The Trump administration issued two new regulations in December that strip vital protections from federal lands and other areas that the best available science indicates are necessary for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.
The first case filed today challenges the Trump administration's cramped interpretation of "habitat," which reverses nearly half a century of protections for habitat that needs restoration to meet species' needs, as well as areas that species will need in the future as refuges to survive dramatic changes to the world's climate.
"The drafters of this rule were clearly more concerned with easing industry regulation than upholding the foundational purpose of the ESA -- to ensure the protection, conservation and recovery of imperiled species," said Earthjustice attorney Elena Bryant, lead attorney on the challenge to the habitat definition. "We are going to court to restore protections for the habitat that is essential to pull species back from the brink of extinction."
The second case argues that the new regulations strip vital protections from federal lands and other areas that the best available science indicates are necessary for the conservation of threatened and endangered species -- and prioritize profits for polluting industries over the conservation needs of wildlife facing extinction.
"Critical habitat is a bedrock protection afforded to imperiled species under the Act," said Earthjustice attorney Leina'ala L. Ley, lead attorney challenging the critical habitat exclusion rule. "By making it harder to designate critical habitat, this rule virtually guarantees that the loss of biodiversity and our natural heritage will only accelerate."
The proposed changes directly undermine the Act's purpose to prevent extinction and promote recovery. The lawsuits were filed in Hawai'i, where the new rules could be especially damaging due in part to limited habitat for native species found nowhere else on Earth.
"The new regulation makes it easier for federal land to be excluded from critical habitat, a result that would be particularly harmful to listed bird species that depend heavily on federal lands, such as the northern spotted owl," said Steve Holmer, vice president at American Bird Conservancy. "These listed bird populations are in decline and facing serious threats. We should be adding protections, not chipping away at the safety net of the ESA."
"By requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to listen to industry rather than science when it decides what habitat to protect, the Trump administration's new rule is an absolute disaster for endangered species and the places they live," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Endangered Species Act was passed to stop extinction, not facilitate it, and we expect the court to strike down this industry giveaway."
"Threatened and endangered national park species require more than just park lands for their survival and recovery," said Bart Melton, wildlife program director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "These regulations make it harder to protect vital areas outside of parks for wildlife and prioritize short-term profit over America's conservation future. In the midst of the climate crisis we should be working to uphold the core tenants of the Endangered Species Act. Instead these regulations critically damage the intent of the Act. NPCA is hopeful these regulations will be reversed."
"Critical habitat is a central pillar of the ESA's protections for listed species, and an essential part of what has made the Act a huge success for the past 50 years," said Lucas Rhoads, attorney at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "These rules tie the Services' hands and make it more difficult to protect the areas that listed species need if they are to survive and flourish. To stem the biodiversity crisis we now face, we need the Services to use all the tools available to them -- not sell out to industry special interests at the expense of these precious species."
"In the midst of the first-ever human caused extinction crisis, one of the worst things you could do is impose restrictions on protection of areas essential to imperiled species' recovery and prioritize corporate profits over preserving the Earth's biodiversity," said Bonnie Rice, Sierra Club endangered species campaign representative. "Yet that is exactly what the Trump administration has done. Their relentless decimation of vital protections of the Endangered Species Act will be fought at every turn."
"Lack of habitat is the main reason why so many species are imperiled," said Jason Rylander, Defenders of Wildlife senior counsel. "For wildlife to have a fighting chance, they need a place to live. If we hope to save the most vulnerable wildlife from extinction, we will need to prioritize habitat restoration in their recovery."
"Hawai'i is the endangered species capital of the world; our small island home has over 30% of the nation's listed plant and animal species," said Moana Bjur, executive director of Conservation Council for Hawai'i. "For us, protecting endangered species and ecosystems is necessary not only to ensure biodiversity and climate resiliency, but also to honor our history and cultural heritage as a place."
"Designation of critical habitat is a crucial piece of the recovery process for species who have received ESA listing status," said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. "This new rule shrinks the areas even eligible to be designated as critical habitat for numerous species, making an endangered or threatened species' struggle to truly recover and thrive all the more precarious in our ever-changing and developing world."
Earthjustice filed both lawsuits on behalf of Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Council), Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians. American Bird Conservancy joined the critical habitat exclusion challenge and will also be represented by Earthjustice.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Sanders Backs Push for Billionaire Tax in California as Newsom Raises Money to Fight It
"Yes: We need a wealth tax on billionaires," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Dec 31, 2025
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday endorsed an effort in California to impose a one-time tax on the wealth of the state's billionaires, a grassroots campaign that has drawn opposition from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and powerful investors.
Sanders (I-Vt.) said the proposed ballot initiative, which is currently in the signature-gathering phase, "is a model that should be emulated throughout the country." The senator said he plans to introduce a proposal for a national wealth tax in the near future.
"In my view, in a democratic society, we cannot continue to tolerate a rigged economy in which 60% of our people live paycheck to paycheck—struggling to pay for housing, food, and healthcare while the top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 93%," Sanders said in a statement posted to social media. "We must not continue a trend in which, over the past 50 years, $79 trillion in wealth in our country has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%."
Yes: We need a wealth tax on billionaires. pic.twitter.com/2OUwSos5De
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) December 30, 2025
If placed on the November 2026 ballot and approved by voters, the California Billionaire Tax Act would levy a single 5% tax on the wealth of the roughly 200 billionaires who reside in the state. Those subject to the tax would have the option of paying the amount owed all at once or over a period of five years.
Organizers say the measure would generate $100 billion in revenue, which the state could use to avert a looming healthcare crisis fueled by the unprecedented Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans enacted over the summer.
“California is facing massive federal healthcare cuts—$20 to $30 billion a year for the next five years," said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, a top supporter of the proposed ballot initiative.
"The billionaire tax would raise dollar-for-dollar emergency funding of $100 billion through a one-time 5% tax on the worldwide net worth of California’s billionaires," Jimenez added. "Any reductions in state income tax would be negligible in comparison to the billions that will be raised by the billionaire tax. And billionaires would still be taxed at lower rates than were in effect under President Reagan."
"We need a tax system that demands that the billionaire class finally pays their fair share of taxes."
Last week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta formally issued the title and summary of the proposed initiative as prominent billionaires—including Peter Thiel and Larry Page—threatened to leave the state over the measure, which would apply retroactively to those living in California as of January 1, 2026. Thiel is facing a potential $1.2 billion tax, while Page would have to pay roughly $12 billion.
The New York Times reported last week that Newsom, "who has been close with people like Mr. Page, is raising money for a committee to oppose the measure."
"The committee received a $100,000 donation from the venture capitalist Ron Conway in November, according to state campaign finance records," the Times added.
Other lawmakers from the state are supporting the measure, including US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley.
Sanders, in his Tuesday statement, applauded Khanna, saying he is "absolutely right to support this effort."
"From a moral, economic, and political perspective, our nation will not thrive when so few own so much while so many have so little," said Sanders. "We need a tax system that demands that the billionaire class finally pays their fair share of taxes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Blow to 'Fetal Personhood' Push, Alabamian Serving 18 Years After Stillbirth Gets New Trial
"I'm hopeful that my new trial will end with me being freed, because I simply lost my pregnancy at home because of an infection," said Brooke Shoemaker, who has already spent five years in prison.
Dec 30, 2025
While Brooke Shoemaker and a rights group representing her in court are celebrating this week after an Alabama judge threw out her conviction and ordered a new trial, her case is also drawing attention to the dangers of "fetal personhood" policies.
"Laws and judicial decisions that grant fetuses—and in some cases embryos and fertilized eggs—the same legal rights and status given to born people, such as the right to life, is 'fetal personhood,'" explains the website of the group, Pregnancy Justice. "When fetuses have rights, this fundamentally changes the legal rights and status of all pregnant people, opening the door to criminalization, surveillance, and obstetric violence."
Since the US Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling ended the federal right to abortion in 2022, far-right activists and politicians have ramped up their fight for fetal personhood policies. Pregnancy Justice found that in the two years after the decision, the number of people who faced criminal charges related to their pregnancies hit its highest level in US history.
Shoemaker's case began even earlier, in 2017, when she experienced a stillbirth at home about 24-26 weeks into her pregnancy. Paramedics brought her to a hospital, where she disclosed using methamphetamine while pregnant. Although a medical examiner could not determine whether the drug use caused the stillbirth—and, according to Pregnancy Justice, "her placenta showed clear signs of infection"—a jury found her guilty of chemical endangerment of a minor. She's served five years of her 18-year sentence.
"After becoming Ms. Shoemaker's counsel in 2024, Pregnancy Justice filed a petition alongside Andrew Stanley of the Samford Law Office requesting a hearing based on new evidence about the infection that led to the demise of Ms. Shoemaker's pregnancy, leading the judge to agree with Pregnancy Justice's medical witness and to vacate the conviction," the rights group said in a Monday statement.
Lee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Tickal wrote in his December 22 order that "should the facts had been known, and brought before the jury, the results probably would have been different."
Shoemaker said Monday that "after years of fighting, I'm thankful that I'm finally being heard, and I pray that my next Christmas will be spent at home with my children and parents... I'm hopeful that my new trial will end with me being freed, because I simply lost my pregnancy at home because of an infection. I loved and wanted my baby, and I never deserved this."
Although Tickal's decision came three days before Christmas, the 45-year-old mother of four remained behind bars for the holiday last week, as the state appeals.
"While we are thrilled with the judge's decision, we are outraged that Ms. Shoemaker is still behind bars when she should have been home for Christmas," said former Pregnancy Justice senior staff attorney Emma Roth. "She was convicted based on feelings, not facts. Pregnancy Justice will continue to fight on appeal and prove that pregnancies end tragically for reasons far beyond a mother's control. Women like Ms. Shoemaker should be allowed to grieve their loss without fearing arrest."
AL.com reported Tuesday that "Alabama is unique in that it is one of only three states, along with Oklahoma and South Carolina, where the state Supreme Court allows the application of criminal laws meant to punish child abuse or child endangerment to be applied in the context of pregnancy."
However, similar cases aren't restricted to those states. Pregnancy Justice found that in the two years following Dobbs, "prosecutors initiated cases in 16 states: Alabama, California, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. While prosecutions were brought in all of these states, to date, the majority of the reported cases occurred in Alabama (192) and Oklahoma (112)."
This is fantastic news!!I wrote in my book how the medical examiner ruled the cause of the stillbirth "undetermined," but the coroner (who lacks medical training) instead listed cause of stillbirth as mom's meth usage on the fetal death certificate.
[image or embed]
— Jill Wieber Lens (@jillwieberlens.bsky.social) December 30, 2025 at 12:25 PM
"Prosecutors used a variety of criminal statutes to charge the defendants in these cases, often bringing more than one charge against an individual defendant," the group's report continues. "In total, the 412 defendants faced 441 charges for conduct related to pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or birth. The majority of charges (398/441) asserted some form of child abuse, neglect, or endangerment."
"As has been the case for decades, nearly all the cases alleged that the pregnant person used a substance during pregnancy," the report adds. "In 268 cases, substance use was the only allegation made against the pregnant person. In the midst of a wide-ranging crisis in maternal healthcare and despite maternal healthcare deserts across the country, prosecutors or police argued that pregnant people's failure to obtain prenatal care was evidence of a crime. This was the case in 29 of 412 cases."
When the publication was released last year, Pregnancy Justice president Lourdes A. Rivera said in a statement that "the Dobbs decision emboldened prosecutors to develop ever more aggressive strategies to prosecute pregnancy, leading to the most pregnancy-related criminal cases on record."
"This is directly tied to the radical legal doctrine of 'fetal personhood,' which grants full legal rights to an embryo or fetus, turning them into victims of crimes perpetrated by pregnant women," Rivera argued. "To turn the tide on criminalization, we need to separate healthcare from the criminal legal system and to change policy and practices to ensure that pregnant people can safely access the healthcare they need, without fear of criminalization. This report demonstrates that, in post-Dobbs America, being pregnant places people at increased risk, not only of dire health outcomes, but of arrest."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Wake-Up Call': Scientists Find 2025 Among Hottest Years on Record
"2025 was full of stark reminders of the urgent need to cut climate pollution, invest in clean energy, and tackle the climate crisis now."
Dec 30, 2025
Climate change driven by human burning of fossil fuels helped make 2025 one of the hottest years ever recorded, a scientific report published Monday affirmed, prompting renewed calls for urgent action to combat the worsening planetary emergency.
Researchers at World Weather Attribution (WWA) found that "although 2025 was slightly cooler than 2024 globally, it was still far hotter than almost any other year on record," with only two other recent years recording a higher average worldwide temperature.
For the first time, the three-year running average will end the year above the 1.5°C warming goal, relative to preindustrial levels, established a decade ago under the landmark Paris climate agreement.
"Global temperatures remained very high and significant harm from human-induced climate change is very real," the report continues. "It is not a future threat, but a present-day reality."
"Across the 22 extreme events we analyzed in depth, heatwaves, floods, storms, droughts, and wildfires claimed lives, destroyed communities, and wiped out crops," the researchers wrote. "Together, these events paint a stark picture of the escalating risks we face in a warming world."
The WWA researchers' findings tracked with the findings of United Nations experts and others that 2025 would be the third-hottest year on record.
According to the WWA study:
This year highlighted again, in stark terms, how unfairly the consequences of human-induced climate change are distributed, consistently hitting those who are already marginalized within their societies the hardest. But the inequity goes deeper: The scientific evidence base itself is uneven. Many of our studies in 2025 focused on heavy rainfall events in the Global South, and time and again we found that gaps in observational data and the reliance on climate models developed primarily for the Global North prevented us from drawing confident conclusions. This unequal foundation in climate science mirrors the broader injustices of the climate crisis.
The events of 2025 make it clear that while we urgently need to transition away from fossil fuels, we also must invest in adaptation measures. Many deaths and other impacts could be prevented with timely action. But events like Hurricane Melissa highlight the limits of preparedness and adaptation: When an intense storm strikes small islands such as Jamaica and other Caribbean nations, even relatively high levels of preparedness cannot prevent extreme losses and damage. This underscores that adaptation alone is not enough; rapid emission reductions remain essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
“If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels very, very, quickly, very soon, it will be very hard to keep that goal” of 1.5°C, WWA co-founder Friederike Otto—who is also an Imperial College London climate scientist—told the Associated Press. “The science is increasingly clear.”
The WWA study's publication comes a month after this year's United Nations Climate Change Conference—or COP30—ended in Brazil with little meaningful progress toward a transition from fossil fuels.
Responding to the new study, Climate Action Campaign director Margie Alt said in a statement that "2025 was full of stark reminders of the urgent need to cut climate pollution, invest in clean energy, and tackle the climate crisis now."
"Today’s report is a wake-up call," Alt continued. "Unfortunately, [US President Donald] Trump and Republicans controlling Congress spent the past year making climate denial official US policy and undermining progress to stave off the worst of the climate crisis. Their reckless polluters-first agenda rolled back critical climate protections and attacked and undermined the very agencies responsible for helping Americans prepare for and recover from increasingly dangerous disasters."
"Across the country, people are standing up and demanding their leaders do better to protect our families from climate change and extreme weather," Alt added. "It's time those in power started listening.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


