Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon v. Babbitt

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibited the unauthorized taking of wild animals (the takings ban). The term “take” was defined to mean to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” a wild animal or to attempt to do so. Because the ESA does not define the term “harm” as used in the takings ban, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) promulgated a regulation stating that the term “harm” should be defined to include both direct harm and any indirect harm caused by the degradation of essential wildlife habitats. The Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (Sweet Home) (plaintiff), a group of citizens and lumber organizations, challenged the FWS regulation, arguing that it violated the ESA (1) because the legislative history did not indicate that Congress intended to include habitat degradation within the definition of “harm”; (2) because Congress intended to prevent habitat degradation solely through the ESA’s federal land-acquisition provision; and (3) because all of the other terms listed under the takings ban prohibited only conduct that directly harmed wildlife, so the term “harm” could not be read expansively to prevent both direct and indirect harm. The FWS countered, arguing that its regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the ESA. The district court upheld the FWS regulation on summary judgment. Sweet Home appealed.