Supreme Court Ruling Supports Endangered Species

By Tom Uhlenbrock Of the Post-Dispatch The provided information . | St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO), June 3, 1995 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Supreme Court Ruling Supports Endangered Species


Tom Uhlenbrock Of the Post-Dispatch The provided information ., St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government may restrict logging and other practices on private property, if they harm the habitat of endangered or threatened species.

The ruling is a blow to the timber industry and property rights advocates, who argued that such restrictions could be made only on federal lands. And it is a victory for environmentalists, who said the powers of the Endangered Species Act must extend to all places where the species live.

The 6-3 decision announced in Washington overturned a federal appeals court ruling last year in a case from Oregon over protection of the northern spotted owl. That court said the Endangered Species Act of 1973 bars only direct threats such as hunting, trapping or otherwise directly killing the species.

But the Supreme Court said landowners violate the act if they change endangered species' habitats, even unintentionally, through other practices.

In the spotted owl case, the timber industry had urged the Supreme Court to rule that the government must buy private land critical to survival of troubled fish or wildlife. Justice Department lawyers replied that such purchases could bankrupt the government, and that some species would become extinct without federal restrictions on private landowners.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, acknowledged conflicts between protecting species and economic endeavors, but said, "These questions must be addressed in the usual course of the law, through case by case resolution and adjudication." Stevens was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is "unmistakably clear" that the law forbids hunting and killing of endangered animals. But, he added, extending protection to habitat "imposed unfairness to the point of financial ruin" to landowners. Also dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Stakes `Very Huge'

"The stakes in this case were very, very huge," said Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Washington University. "It's one of the most critical parts of one of the most important environmental acts.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Supreme Court Ruling Supports Endangered Species
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?