California’s celebrated wildlife comeback stories — from the majestic condor to the playful sea otter — owe much of their survival to the federal Endangered Species Act. Now state officials are heading to court to defend that 50-year-old law, arguing that changes pushed through by the Trump administration threaten to undo decades of conservation progress.
Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Wednesday that California has joined 21 other states in filing two separate lawsuits challenging the administration’s overhaul of endangered species protections. The legal action adds to a growing list of dozens of lawsuits California has brought against the administration’s broader push to loosen federal regulations.
The lawsuits take aim at revisions to the landmark conservation law, which was signed by Republican President Richard Nixon — himself a Californian — in 1973.
“Caring for our wildlife and our environment is part of caring for our future, yet President Trump seems to care only for himself and his industry friends,” Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration has continuously sought to put our ecosystems in danger, which is why we continue to take them to court.”
At the heart of the dispute is a rule change finalized in July that eliminates a long-standing definition making it illegal to damage or destroy habitat that endangered species depend on for shelter, food and breeding. Critics say the rollback effectively clears the way for mining, logging and other development in areas once considered off-limits.
The Interior Department has defended the change, saying in a statement that it “will end years of federal overreach” and deliver “long overdue financial and regulatory relief to citizens who faced unpredictable delays and unnecessary costs” tied to what officials described as overly broad interpretations of the law.
But the coalition of attorneys general characterized the shift differently in its federal court filing, calling it “a reversal of staggering proportions.”
Beyond the habitat definition, the administration’s changes also make it easier for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to sidestep designating “critical habitat” — a label that restricts federal and federally permitted development. Additionally, the revisions do away with a rule that automatically extended protections to species listed as threatened, meaning wildlife officials must now craft individualized protection plans for each newly listed species.
That added workload comes as the agency grapples with steep staffing losses. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has lost more than a third of its workforce since 2024, even as roughly 400 species await decisions on federal protection. Only three species have been granted protections under the current administration, said Noah Greenwald, the organization’s endangered species co-director.
Conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice, have already filed their own legal challenges against the rule changes. But Greenwald said having state attorneys general enter the fight carries added weight.
“It really signals that the chief legal officer of almost half the states don’t agree with these changes,” he said. “To have the states weigh in is really powerful.”
The stakes are particularly high for California, which trails only Hawaii in the number of threatened and endangered species found within its borders, according to the attorney general’s office.
California does have its own endangered species law, first passed in 1970 and substantially rewritten in the 1980s. But that state law has notable gaps. At least 140 species currently protected under the federal Endangered Species Act have no corresponding protection under California’s version, according to state wildlife officials. A spokesperson for Bonta’s office told CalMatters that those species “could potentially obtain protections” under state law, but the process to add them can take considerable time. The federal law also covers migratory species that pass through multiple states, something California’s law cannot fully replicate on its own.
There’s a deeper legal wrinkle as well. Unlike its federal counterpart, California’s Endangered Species Act does not explicitly treat habitat destruction as a protected concern, according to Eric Biber, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law — though he noted there remains some legal debate over how the state law should be interpreted. That ambiguity raises questions about whether California’s law alone can compensate for the habitat protections stripped away at the federal level.
Habitat loss remains the leading threat to most endangered species nationwide, according to a Stanford Law School analysis. Biber said the rollback fits into a broader pattern by the Trump administration, pointing to recent efforts to weaken wetland protections as well.
“This is one further step in this administration’s efforts to roll back protections for habitat for endangered species,” he said.
Original source: CalMatters
