Federal Agencies Rescind Key 'Harm' Definition Under Endangered Species Act

You might care about this because federal agencies are changing an important rule for protecting endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are removing their official definition of the word 'harm' from the Endangered Species Act regulations. For a long time, 'harm' included actions that damaged an animal's habitat if that damage injured or killed the animal. This meant that certain land use or development activities could be regulated under the Act. The agencies are now saying that this broader interpretation went beyond what Congress originally meant when it wrote the law. The Act's original definition of 'take' includes actions like harassing, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting. The agencies believe the regulatory definition of 'harm' had expanded 'take' to cover too much, turning it into a sweeping land-use rule rather than focusing on direct actions against animals. This change will shift how the government and private citizens are expected to protect endangered wildlife from 'harm' by going back to a more traditional, narrower understanding of the term. The rule becomes effective on September 14, 2026. This change is particularly interesting because it shifts the interpretation of a core part of the Endangered Species Act. For decades, the regulatory definition of 'harm' allowed the government to regulate activities that indirectly affected species through habitat destruction. This broad view was even upheld by the Supreme Court in a case known as Babbitt v. Sweet Home. However, the document notes that the Court's decision relied on giving deference to the agencies, rather than affirming that it was the best way to read the law. Some justices strongly disagreed with the broad definition, arguing that 'harm' should refer to direct actions against individual animals, similar to killing or capturing. By rescinding this definition, the agencies are essentially aligning with that dissenting view. This could change the balance of how habitat protection is handled under the Act, potentially reducing federal oversight on private activities that alter habitats but do not directly kill or injure animals. This move signals a different approach to balancing conservation with other activities. Many different groups will find this legal document very important. Landowners, developers, and businesses in industries like agriculture, forestry, and energy should pay close attention. Their current operations and future plans might be affected by this new, narrower definition of 'harm.' Environmental advocacy groups and conservation organizations will also be highly interested, as this change could alter strategies for protecting endangered species and their habitats. Legal professionals who practice environmental law will need to understand the new framework. Federal agencies, state governments, and local authorities involved in land management and species protection will also need to adapt to these updated rules. Finally, academic researchers and anyone interested in the future of environmental policy and endangered species conservation will want to follow the impact of this significant regulatory adjustment.