A host of environmental groups, including Flathead Valley based ones, filed suit recently against the Department of Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and several other Trump Administration officials for removing the word “harm” from rules concerning enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.

The groups — Center for Biological Diversity, Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians — are being represented by Earthjustice filed the suit on July 14 in federal court in Seattle.

 In 1996 a U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the regulations at that time that defined “harm” to include habitat destruction that impairs breeding, feeding, or shelter. 

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service repealed their regulatory definitions of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act , paving the way for the modification or degradation of habitat by extractive industries, even if doing so kills or injures imperiled wildlife. The move is illegal, in part because harming species through habitat destruction is prohibited by the ESA’s statutory language. The regulatory definition repealed by the administration had been on the books for 50 years,” the groups said in a release.

But the Administration saw it otherwise. It claims the current reform is based on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which requires agencies to follow the single best meaning of a statute rather than contorting laws to fit political agendas. Using the legally justifiable standard, the Services determined that the prior definition of “harm” was an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights.

The Department of Interior claims protections are still in place.

“The ESA’s core protections remain firmly in place. Actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited. Existing permits and incidental take statements remain valid and unchanged. What ends today is a system that repeatedly punished people for indirect or speculative impacts never contemplated by Congress,” the Department of Interior claimed in a release.

Regulators deleted the word “harm” from the rules on Endangered Species entirely.

The case all but promises to wind its way through the courts in the coming years.

“Roads built for logging and other human access destroy grizzly bear habitat and the bear’s ability to safely use its habitat,” claimed Keith Hammer, Swan View Coalition Chair. “Repealing the harm rule will allow industry to devastate the habitat grizzly bears and many other wildlife species depend on for their survival.”

The suit, among other things, seeks to have the “harm” language preserved in the ESA rules and seek injunctive relief from having the current rules enforced as the case proceeds through the courts.