Court ruled in favor of landowners seeking to limit power to designate private land as protected habitat for species

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The US supreme court on Tuesday decided against the interests of a warty amphibian and handed a victory to a timber company and other landowners in the first major move on the environment from the bench this term.

The court ruled in favor of the commercial interests seeking to limit the federal government’s power to designate private land as protected habitat for endangered species, in a property rights case involving the dusky gopher frog.

The court, in a 8-0 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a 2016 appeals court ruling that had favored the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

World's fastest shark speeding toward extinction Read more

In 2012, the agency decided to include private land where the frog does not currently live as critical habitat, potentially putting restrictions on future development opportunities under the Endangered Species Act. Weyerhaeuser, a company which harvests timber on the area of Louisiana land in question, was backed in the case by fellow landowners and business groups.

The frog, found only in southern Mississippi, also previously inhabited Louisiana and Alabama.

Roberts wrote that the appeals court’s broad definition of what can be defined as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act was incorrect.

Weyerhaeuser pointed out, meanwhile, that the government did not account for the costs of planting pine trees that would be required for the frogs to flourish.

“While we’re disappointed, the ruling doesn’t weaken the mandate to protect habitat for endangered wildlife,” said Collette Adkins, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that backs the designation.

The Fish and Wildlife Service described the frog as darkly colored and moderately sized with warts covering its back and dusky spots on its belly.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that represents Edward Poitevent, whose family owns most of the land in question, hailed the ruling.

“The nation’s hardworking property owners can rest easier tonight knowing government-sponsored land grabs just became a lot more difficult,” said Mark Miller, one of the group’s lawyers.