## Facts

- The Endangered Species Act (ESA) makes it unlawful to “take” any endangered species; “take” includes “harass” and “harm.”
- The Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, adopted a regulation defining “harm” to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
- Logging companies, small landowners, and related interests brought a facial challenge, arguing the ESA does not authorize treating habitat modification as a prohibited “take.”
- The district court upheld the regulation, and a D.C. Circuit panel initially affirmed.
- On rehearing, the D.C. Circuit reversed, concluding “harm” must be limited to direct applications of force against animals.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine the validity of the agency’s interpretation.

## Issues

1. Whether the ESA’s term “harm,” within the statutory definition of “take,” reasonably includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures protected wildlife.
2. Whether the Secretary of the Interior’s regulatory definition of “harm” is a permissible construction of the ESA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and upheld the regulation in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that “harm” can include indirect injury resulting from significant habitat modification or degradation, so long as it actually kills or injures wildlife.
- The Court found the regulation consistent with the statutory text, the ESA’s conservation purposes, and Congress’s later enactment of an “incidental take” permit mechanism.
- The Court rejected the view that the surrounding verbs in the definition of “take” required limiting “harm” to direct physical force.

## Legal Principles

- “Harm” in the ESA’s definition of “take” may include significant habitat modification or degradation when it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns (including breeding, feeding, or sheltering).
- Statutory interpretation should avoid rendering terms redundant; limiting “harm” to direct force would largely duplicate other listed forms of “take.”
- The ESA’s structure and purpose support protections that address habitat-related threats to species survival.
- Congress’s authorization of permits for “incidental” takings supports reading § 9 to reach indirect, non-purposeful takings associated with otherwise lawful activities.
- When the statute does not unambiguously resolve the precise interpretive question, a reasonable agency construction is controlling.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Interior Department’s definition of “harm,” confirming that the ESA’s prohibition on “taking” endangered species can extend to significant habitat modification that results in actual death or injury to protected wildlife.


Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687 (1995)