By MARSHA MERCER
The dusky gopher frog hopped into these pages in early
October after its appearance, figuratively, before the Supreme Court.
The first oral argument of the term involved the
endangered frog’s critical habitat, specifically the federal government’s
responsibility under the Endangered Species Act to protect critical habitat
versus landowners’ rights.
On Tuesday, the court issued a unanimous opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service -- but did not settle the matter.
The justices sent the dispute, with instructions on
two questions, back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, which had sided with the wildlife service in 2016.
So the frog is still in hot water.
To recap, the dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa) historically
lived in Louisiana but hasn’t been seen there since about 1965. The frog is
named for the gopher tortoise holes where the mature frog lives.
Now found in only three places in Mississippi, the
frog was declared endangered in 2001, and the wildlife service designated 1,544
acres in St. Tammany Parish as critical habitat in 2012.
The landowners want to develop the property, and the
government and environmentalists want to preserve the land in case it’s needed
to save the species.
The case became a cause
celebre for property rights advocates who accuse the government of a land
grab. The landowners claimed a Supreme Court win.
“In a word: elated. It’s a great victory for our
side,” Edward Poitevent whose family has owned the land for generations, told
the Associated Press. Weyerhaeuser Co. also owns a part and grows commercial
timber there.
Environmentalists were disappointed, but “the ruling
doesn’t weaken the mandate to protect habitat for endangered wildlife,” said
Collette Adkins of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The case is important because it may signal courts are
willing to slow Trump Administration efforts to weaken the Endangered Species
Act. Separate efforts by House Republicans to rewrite the species law seem
doomed now that Democrats have regained control of the House, but that doesn’t
stop the administration’s action.
In oral arguments, three of the four conservative
justices seemed sympathetic to the landowners, and Justice Clarence Thomas
asked no questions. The four liberal justices seemed sympathetic to saving the
frog’s habitat.
Perhaps they agreed to disagree. The vote was 8 to 0
to send back the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was not yet on the court
when the justices heard the arguments, did not participate in the case.
In the opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., seemed
to appreciate the quirky critter.
“Warts dot its back, and dark spots cover its entire
body. It is noted for covering its eyes with its front legs when it feels
threatened, peeking out periodically until danger passes. Less endearingly, it
also secretes a bitter, milky substance to deter would-be diners,” Roberts
wrote.
The chief also provided a grammar lesson: “Our
analysis starts with the phrase ‘critical habitat.’ According to the ordinary
understanding of how adjectives work, ‘critical habitat’ must also be ‘habitat.’
Adjectives modify nouns – they pick out a subset of a category that possesses a
certain quality.”
Yes, but. The law also says unoccupied land can be habitat, as Roberts noted in this
parenthetical sentence: “(Habitat can, of course, include areas where the
species does not currently live,
given that the statute defines critical habitat to include unoccupied areas.)”
The Supreme Court batted back to the lower court the
warty issues of what constitutes habitat and the economic ramifications of
designating the property as critical habitat.
An economic impact report found the designation
potentially could cost the landowners $33.9 million in lost development, but the
government concluded the cost was not disproportionate considering the
conservation benefits.
“The dusky gopher frog’s habitat protections remain in
place for now, and we’re hopeful the 5th Circuit will recognize the
importance of protecting and restoring habitats for endangered wildlife to
live,” said Adkins at the Center for Biological Diversity said.
At this point, the frog is in the 5th Circuit, but the
prolonged legal battle means it could yet hop back to the Supreme Court.
©2018 Marsha Mercer.
All rights reserved.
30