Stories

Browse major news stories and see what officials have said.

Tag: litigation ✕

The Endangered Species Act's Definition of "Harm" Dies the Same Day an Internal Memo Narrows the Law to Intentional Killing Only — 21 Attorneys General Sue, With Connecticut's William Tong Saying Trump Is "Sacrificing Entire Species for Short-Term Corporate and Political Gain"

Two things happened to the Endangered Species Act on September 14, 2026. A final rule rescinding the federal government's longstanding regulatory definition of "harm" — the definition that counted habitat destruction as harm to a protected species — took effect. And, according to an internal memo obtained by The New York Times and reported on September 17, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik signed guidance reinterpreting the 1973 law so that only *intentional* harm to an individual animal or plant violates it. Accidental killings and injuries arising from economic activity would not. Together the two changes strip the Act of the mechanism environmental lawyers have relied on since the Supreme Court upheld the habitat reading in *Babbitt v. Sweet Home* (1995): the ability to treat destroying a species' home as harming the species. Five days before the rule took effect, on September 9, a coalition of 21 state attorneys general — co-led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell and Washington AG Nick Brown — filed two lawsuits in the Northern District of California against the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, seeking to block both the rescission of the "harm" definition and a companion rule stripping automatic protection from newly listed threatened species. Species named in the complaints include the piping plover, the shortnose sturgeon, the leatherback sea turtle and the Southern Resident killer whale, whose population has fallen from 98 whales in 1995 to 74 today. Separately, Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal the rule, though it has no path to the floor before the midterms.

“From the beaches of Cape Cod to the peaks of the Berkshire mountains, Massachusetts' diverse landscapes support thousands of unique plant and animal species that are essential to the health of our environment.”

Andrea Campbell (D-MA) · Sep 9, 2026
environment
endangered-species-act
wildlife
5 statements

Twenty-Two States and D.C. Sue to Stop the Rule That Cuts Off Federal Medicaid and CHIP Money for Transgender Minors — Filed Six Weeks Before It Takes Effect, and RFK Jr. Says the Care "Fails to Meet the Evidentiary Standard Our Children Deserve"

On September 2-3, 2026 a coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, joined by the Governor of Pennsylvania, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to block a Department of Health and Human Services rule that bars federal Medicaid and CHIP reimbursement for gender-affirming care for minors. The rule, finalized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on August 13, 2026 and effective October 13, prohibits federal matching funds for puberty-suppressing medication, hormone therapy and surgery for Medicaid beneficiaries under 18 and CHIP beneficiaries under 19 — while leaving the identical treatments reimbursable when provided to patients who are not transgender. Children already on hormone therapy get up to six months of continued funding after the effective date. HHS received more than 30,000 comments on the proposal; more than 90 percent opposed it. The complaint argues the rule exceeds HHS's statutory authority, misuses the evidence offered to justify it, and would set a precedent that the executive branch can substitute a categorical agency ban for the individualized judgments of licensed clinicians without any authorization from Congress. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led the filing; California's Rob Bonta, Illinois's Kwame Raoul, Maryland's Anthony Brown, Connecticut's William Tong and Massachusetts's Andrea Joy Campbell co-led. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had defended the rule when it was finalized in August, saying the government would no longer fund procedures he characterized as carrying risk of irreversible harm.

“No federal agency has the power to directly regulate the practice of medicine—a traditional and congressionally recognized power reserved for the states.”

Kwame Raoul (D-IL) · Sep 3, 2026
health-care
medicaid
chip
8 statements