Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for Great Oregon
Citation
515 U.S. 687 (1995). Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) makes it unlawful to “take” any endangered species. “Take” is defined to include “harm.” The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) promulgated a regulation defining “harm” to include significant habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns. Timber and land-use interests challenged the regulation as exceeding statutory authority.
Issue
Is the FWS’s definition of “harm” — encompassing significant habitat modification — a permissible construction of the ESA’s prohibition on “taking” endangered species?
Holding
The Court upheld the FWS regulation under Chevron deference, finding the broad definition of “harm” a permissible and reasonable interpretation of the ESA’s text, structure, and purpose.
Rule / Doctrine
Under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, when a statute is ambiguous and an agency’s interpretation is reasonable, courts defer to the agency. The majority found “harm” ambiguous — ordinary meaning could encompass habitat destruction that kills wildlife — and the agency’s definition consistent with ESA’s broad remedial purpose. Scalia’s dissent applied ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis: the other verbs in the definition of “take” (pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect) all involve direct application of force to an animal, so “harm” should be read narrowly as requiring direct contact, not habitat modification.
Significance
A principal vehicle for teaching canons of construction — particularly ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis — against Chevron deference, and for debating textualism versus purposivism in statutory interpretation.