BABBITT V. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON
515 U.S. 687 (1995)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and a
dispute over the application of the Chevron doctrine.
FACTS: The Endangered Species Act defined the term 'take' under section 3(19) which
included the term 'harm.' The Interior Department regulations that implemented the statute
defined the term 'harm' under 50 C.F.R. Section 17.3 (1994). (See page 320 Breyer 5th). A
limitation on the word 'take' was added by amendment in 1982 that allowed the Secretary to
grant a permit for any taking otherwise prohibited if that taking was incidental to and not
the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. The Act also requires the
Secretary to identify species of fish and wildlife that are in danger of extinction and to
publish lists of all species determined to be endangered or threatened. The Secretary is
also authorized to acquire land to aid in preserving such species and the Act requires all
other federal agencies to ensure that none of their activities, will jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered species. Sweet Home (P) are small landowners, logging
companies, and families dependent on the forest products of the Pacific Northwest and in the
Southeast. They brought a declaratory judgment action alleging that application of the
'harm' regulation to the red cockheaded woodpecker and the northern spotted owl, had injured
them economically. The case was decided on motions for summary judgment.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment