National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt case brief
130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff home builders,
county, and city sought review of a decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, granting a motion for
summary judgment of defendants, the U.S. Department of the Interior
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, holding that the Endangered
Species Act § 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1), was a valid
exercise of Congress's power pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution.
FACTS: Plaintiffs sought to expand an intersection in a habitat area used by an endangered species. Defendants informed plaintiffs that the expansion would likely lead to a taking of the species in violation of the Endangered Species Act (Act) § 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and the court affirmed. The court held that Congress had a rational purpose in regulating endangered species. The court held that the prohibition against takings of an endangered species was necessary to enable the government to control the transport of the endangered species in interstate commerce, and fell under Congress's authority to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses. The court further held that such takings would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce by depriving commercial actors of access to an important natural resource, biodiversity. Lastly, the court held that Congress had the power to prevent interstate competition that would result in the destruction of endangered species.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of defendants, holding that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to regulate the taking of endangered species.
FACTS: Plaintiffs sought to expand an intersection in a habitat area used by an endangered species. Defendants informed plaintiffs that the expansion would likely lead to a taking of the species in violation of the Endangered Species Act (Act) § 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and the court affirmed. The court held that Congress had a rational purpose in regulating endangered species. The court held that the prohibition against takings of an endangered species was necessary to enable the government to control the transport of the endangered species in interstate commerce, and fell under Congress's authority to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses. The court further held that such takings would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce by depriving commercial actors of access to an important natural resource, biodiversity. Lastly, the court held that Congress had the power to prevent interstate competition that would result in the destruction of endangered species.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of defendants, holding that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to regulate the taking of endangered species.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment