
Unpacking the Trump Administration’s Rescission of the Harm Definition
In this episode of Digging Into Land Use Law , Brooke Marcus and Paul Weiland discuss the Trump administration’s rescission of the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which impacts how habitat modifications are viewed in relation to the prohibited “take” of protected species. Brooke and Paul explain the historical context of the definition through the Supreme Court’s Sweet Home decision and its reliance on Chevrondeference, noting that the recent Loper Bright ruling, which overruled Chevron, introduces uncertainty by shifting interpretive authority from agencies to courts. They also discuss the continued habitat protections under ESA Section 7, potential future regulatory and legislative responses, and how agencies, courts and Congress might redefine habitat and species protections in the future.






