New York and a coalition of other states have filed two lawsuits challenging federal rules that weaken habitat and other protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Attorney General Letitia James said the rules could affect endangered and threatened wildlife in New York, including sea turtles, whales, piping plovers and sturgeon.
The coalition is asking courts to vacate the regulations and restore earlier safeguards. The lawsuits argue that the changes violate the Endangered Species Act, Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
Habitat rule changes definition of harm
One lawsuit challenges the removal of a longstanding definition of harm that included damage or destruction to habitat. Under the new federal rule, the coalition said, an action would generally have to be directed at an individual animal to qualify as prohibited harm.
The states argue that habitat loss is one of the largest threats to endangered species and that excluding habitat destruction conflicts with the federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
New York is home to dozens of listed species, including four sea turtle species and six whale species. State officials said local protections cannot fully replace federal rules because wildlife moves across state boundaries.
The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973. James' office said 99% of species placed under its protection have avoided extinction and cited the bald eagle as a recovery aided by New York's reintroduction program.
Threatened species and critical habitat
The second lawsuit challenges two additional rules. One ends automatic baseline protections for newly listed threatened species, meaning the federal government would have to write a separate rule before prohibitions on killing, harming or harassing those species take effect.
The coalition said the change could leave species without protection for extended periods. It cited the monarch butterfly, which is under consideration for threatened-species status, as an example.
Federal officials could still create species-specific protections, but the states argue the delay between a listing and a separate rule would expose already-declining populations to additional risk.
Another rule requires regulators to weigh requests from companies that want land or water excluded from a critical-habitat designation. The attorneys general said an exclusion would be required when federal officials conclude business benefits outweigh risks, unless the decision would directly cause a species' extinction.
The states argue that the standard gives developers and fossil-fuel companies too much influence over scientific habitat decisions and could open protected areas to logging, mining or drilling.
James' office said those decisions could affect coastal feeding and nesting areas as well as rivers where recovering fish populations rely on connected habitat. The complaint contends that economic considerations cannot displace the conservation duties Congress placed in the statute.
The lawsuits also say the new framework could reverse decades of recovery work. The coalition is seeking a return to rules that protect habitat, provide an immediate safety net for newly threatened species and keep critical-habitat decisions centered on survival needs.
Attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia joined New York in one or both cases. The Trump administration's response was not included in the state release.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.