Intentional Torts

profilewsantos

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides (in relevant part) that:

  • Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary (of the Interior), insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical.

In 1978, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce respectively, promulgated a joint regulation stating that the obligations imposed by Section 7(a)(2) extend to actions taken in foreign nations. In 1983, the Interior Department proposed a revised joint regulation that would require consultation only for actions taken in the United States or on the high seas. Shortly thereafter, Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations filed an action against the Secretary of the Interior, seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation is in error as to the geographic scope of Section 7(a)(2) and an injunction requiring the Secretary to promulgate a new regulation restoring the initial interpretation. The Secretary asserted that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring this action.

  1. What arguments would support the plaintiff's standing to bring this action?
  2. What arguments would support the Secretary's claim that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring this action?
  3. Which side's arguments are most convincing? Explain.
    • 2 days ago
    • 3
    Answer(1)

    Purchase the answer to view it

    NOT RATED
    • attachment
      IntentionalTorts.docx