Iran Just Made a Statement That Won't End Well for Them
What's Going on at the NRA?
Here's What Ben Ferguson Said That Triggered Another Meltdown on CNN
Say Hello To My Li’l Friend
Between Turban and Crown: Why Reza Pahlavi Is No Answer to Iran’s Crisis
Ana Navarro Begs Obama to Break Silence and Attack Trump: 'This Is an...
Disgraced Democrat 'Super Mayor' Charges $99 for Tell-All Book While Dodging FBI Probe
No Kings 2.0 Protests Set for July 4 Because the First One Was...
'Alligator Alcatraz': Florida's AG Has a New Idea for Dealing With Illegal Aliens
Gavin Newsom Has His Next Stunt in Mind: Challenging JD Vance to a...
Democrats Plot to Inflate 2030 Census With Illegal Immigrants to Secure House Seats
Illegal Venezuelan Gang Member Charged With Attempted Murder of Federal Officer in Nebrask...
Rational by Other Standards
America's Foundation: The Imago Dei and Why it Matters
Justice Clarence Thomas’s Wise Words About 'Experts'
Tipsheet

Supreme Court's Latest Decision Is a Blow to Environmentalists But a Win For Property Rights

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made a decision that was a blow to environmentalists. The Court unanimously ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service can't designate land as a "critical habitat" for an endangered species if the species no longer lives in the environment. 

Advertisement

The case was brought about by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and landowner Edward Poitevent who had 1,500 acres of his land in Louisiana designated as a “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog, even though the frog hasn't lived in the area since 1965.

The land has been in Poitevent’s family since the Civil War. In the 1990s, the Weyerhaeuser Company acquired the Poitevents’ lease for its timber operations. That all changed in 2011 when he was told that his property was a "backup" property for the endangered species. The only other location where the frogs were found was in a single pond in Mississippi, about 70 miles away from Poitevent's property. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told him that his property was the only other habitat that they could identify.

What's shocking is the government said that in order for the frog to survive on his land, trees would need to be replaced and brush would need to be burned. 

"By locking down land on behalf of a frog that doesn’t live there, the feds froze an estimated $34 million in economic activity. Nor can Edward use his own land for anything else in the future—a literal death knell to his property rights," Pacific Legal Foundation said in a press release. Not only that, but Poitevent would be on the hook for making necessary landscape changes to make it inhabitable for the frog. 

Advertisement

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous decision, saying, “Only the ‘habitat’ of the endangered species is eligible for designation as ‘critical habitat,'” Roberts wrote. However, he noted the 5th Circuit did not define the term “habitat” in its decision, and sent the case back to the appeals court with instructions to do so.

The Supreme Court also said the Fifth Circuit needs to take into account the financial burden that's being placed on the land owner. 

“I am really overjoyed that an eight to nothing court agreed with me that the service’s decision was absurd and nightmarish for property rights in the United States,” Poitevent told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “We all actually thought something like this would happen, but what’s really stunning is this is an eight to nothing decision."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement