Sept 9 (Reuters) - U.S. states filed two lawsuits on Wednesday accusing President Donald Trump's administration of illegally weakening the federal Endangered Species Act, a landmark law that has shielded the bald eagle and other wildlife from dangers posed by development.
In one lawsuit, states challenged a rule that narrowed the law's definition of harm, which had long included encroachments on habitats where endangered animals live. The new rule allows oil drilling, mining and other activities in those
habitats so long as those activities do not directly kill or injure the animals.
The other lawsuit challenges two rules. One rule eliminates broad protections for newly threatened species unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service creates species-specific protections. The second rule requires the government to consider objections by developers, fossil fuel companies and other businesses before declaring areas as "critical habitats."
One or both lawsuits were filed by the attorneys general of 20 states and the District of Columbia, New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
Enacted by Congress in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has been credited with saving a variety of animals including the California condor, grizzly bear and humpback whale from possible extinction.
Weakening the law aligns with Trump's goal to reduce regulations that he says constrain American businesses.
These include the scaling back of a variety of environmental initiatives and standards, including by reducing government support for clean energy and repealing an Obama administration-era scientific finding that climate change threatens public health.
Many wildlife advocates consider habitat loss the biggest cause of animal extinction.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said the Endangered Species Act has been "weaponized" to stop a myriad of projects, weakening competitiveness, undermining national security, and hurting Americans' pocketbooks.
He has said the new rules more closely align the law with its original intent.
The changes follow the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2024 to overrule a 40-year-old precedent that required courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws they administer.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York)
