Name of case:
Babbitt v. Sweet Home
Court:
United States Supreme Court
Citation:
515 U.S. 687 (1995)
Parties and their roles:
BRUCE BABBITT,
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, PETITIONERS
Vs.
SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES
FOR A GREAT OREGON. (DEFENDANTS)
Facts:
Sweet Home chapter is a group of landowner, loggers and families. They are dependent in Forest goods in the Pacific Northwest. Two U.S. agencies are trying to halt logging due to the endangerment of two species, the spotted owl and the red cockaded woodpecker.
Issues:
The issue in this case is whether the interpretation of the word harm under the Endangered Species Act includes habitat modification or destruction when it may kill or injure wildlife. The issue in a general sense was whether the statute applies to commercial businesses with the unintended attention directed towards endangered species. If commercial business were to go ahead with their project then it will have an indirect effect on destroying endangered species habitats.
Lower court decisions:
The Trial Court found for petitioner, defendants appealed.
The Appellate Court found for defendants, petitioner appealed
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the definition of harm does include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures wildlife. They also specified that the Appellate Court was wrong by assuming that words in the definition of "take" only apply to actions involving direct contact with endangered animals.
Reasoning:
This case demonstrated the actual definition of the Endangered Species Act. In this case one could notice that the act goes far beyond the literal meaning of the word. The intent of ESA is to give broad protection to endangered species, and must include even actions that may have minimal or unforeseeable effects. I do agree with the courts decision but we have to take in