Legal challenge to protect endangered species’ habitat.
By: Miles Johnson, Legal Director
Columbia Riverkeeper filed a federal court case challenging the Trump administration’s rules aimed at making it easier to destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species.
Fish and wildlife—like the Columbia River’s iconic salmon and steelhead—need habitat to survive. Many runs of Columbia River basin salmon are critically low or in danger of extinction, in large part because federal dams and other developments have degraded the habitat where these fish breed, grow, and migrate. And a federal court recently noted that federal salmon policy is moving in the “wrong direction” and scolded federal agencies for their “disappointing history of government avoidance and manipulation instead of sincere efforts at solving the problem and genuinely remediating the harm.”
Rather than attempting to help Northwest communities that rely on salmon and clean water, the Trump administration axed a long-standing rule prohibiting people, companies, and governments from killing or injuring endangered species by destroying their habitat. The upshot will be that fossil fuel companies, developers, and federal agencies like Bonneville Power will be emboldened to increase activities that destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species, including many stocks of Columbia River salmon.
How did we get here?
When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it recognized that protecting the habitats of rare fish, wildlife, and plants is essential to preventing extinction and helping those species recover.
Decades ago, to implement the ESA’s goal of protecting habitat for endangered species, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both wrote rules that prohibit anyone from causing “harm” to an ESA-listed species by destroying its habitat. These rules recognized the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these rules, explaining that they were supported by the ordinary meaning of “harm,” the purpose of the ESA, and multiple indications of congressional intent.
Salmon Populations Over the Years
At the urging of big corporations and fossil fuel companies, the Trump administration proposed deleting these long-standing, common-sense protections. Hundreds of thousands of Americans submitted public comments opposing the Trump administration’s move to eliminate habitat protections for wildlife. U.S. Senators, tribes, scientists, legal experts, and environmental groups also opposed the move. True to form, the Trump administration ignored the science and the law, and pushed ahead with its plan to gut our bedrock environmental laws.
Next Steps:
We filed this legal challenge in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington, and Judge XX has been assigned to the case. We anticipate that this case could be moved or consolidated with other cases challenging this rule that have been or will be filed in other courts across the country. We expect that several States and Tribes will also file cases challenging this rule change. It may take roughly a year for the district court to decide the legality of this rule change.
Columbia Riverkeeper is represented in this case by lawyers at Earthjustice. Co-plaintiffs in this case include Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians.
Take action: Explore all petitions in support of salmon recovery.
PRESS RELEASE
Columbia Riverkeeper Files Federal Challenge to Trump Administration Threats to Endangered Species
Administration axes long-standing “harm” definition that prohibits killing or injuring endangered species by destroying their habitat
Media Contact:
Miles Johnson, Legal Director
miles@columbiariverkeeper.org
(971) 515-7556
July 14, 2026 (Hood River, Ore.) — Columbia Riverkeeper filed a federal court case today challenging the Trump administration’s rule change to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) aimed at making it easier to destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species.
The administration just axed a long-standing definition of “harm,” upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, that prohibits people, companies, and governments from killing or injuring endangered species by destroying their habitat. As a result, fossil fuel companies, developers, and federal agencies will be emboldened to increase activities that destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species, including many stocks of iconic Columbia River salmon and steelhead.
“This rule change defies common sense, public opinion, science, and the law,” said Miles Johnson, Columbia Riverkeeper Legal Director. “This is a massive move in the wrong direction. Fish and wildlife obviously need habitat to survive.”
Many runs of Columbia River basin salmon are critically low or in danger of extinction, in large part because federal dams and other developments have degraded the habitat where these fish breed, grow, and migrate. A federal court recently noted that federal salmon policy is moving in the “wrong direction” and scolded federal agencies for their “disappointing history of government avoidance and manipulation instead of sincere efforts at solving the problem and genuinely remediating the harm.”
When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973, it recognized that protecting the habitats of rare fish, wildlife, and plants is essential to preventing extinction and helping those species recover. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both wrote rules that prohibit anyone from causing “harm” to an ESA-listed species by destroying its habitat. These rules recognized the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these rules, explaining that they were supported by the ordinary meaning of “harm,” the purpose of the ESA, and multiple indications of congressional intent.
The Trump administration proposed deleting these long-standing, common-sense protections. Hundreds of thousands of Americans submitted public comments opposing the Trump administration’s move to eliminate habitat protections for wildlife. U.S. Senators, tribes, scientists, legal experts, and environmental groups also opposed the move. The Trump administration ignored the science and the law, and pushed ahead with its plan to gut bedrock environmental laws.
“This change only benefits big corporations and fossil fuel companies,” added Johnson. “Science doesn’t remotely back this up. We’re changing the natural world at an alarming rate, and species can’t keep up. When they’re gone, they’re gone forever.”
Columbia Riverkeeper filed this legal challenge in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington, and Judge XX has been assigned to the case. This case could be moved or consolidated with other cases challenging this rule that have been or will be filed in other courts across the country. Several States and Tribes are also expected to file cases challenging this rule change. It may take roughly a year for the district court to decide the legality of this rule change. Columbia Riverkeeper is represented in this case by lawyers at Earthjustice. Co-plaintiffs include Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians.
About Columbia Riverkeeper: Columbia Riverkeeper is a nonprofit organization with over 25,000 members and supporters that works to protect the water quality of the Columbia River and all life connected to it, from the headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. Learn more.