Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Or.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Property

515 U.S. 687 (1995)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyEndangered Species ActESAtakeharmhabitat modificationadministrative deferenceChevron

Facts

The ESA makes it unlawful for any person to 'take' endangered species, and defines 'take' to include 'harm.' Since 1975, the Secretary's regulation has defined 'harm' as an act that actually kills or injures wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Respondents were landowners, logging companies, and related organizations who facially challenged that regulation, alleging economic injury from its application to the red-cockaded woodpecker and the northern spotted owl. For purposes of the case, the Court assumed respondents did not intend to harm the species but that their logging activities would alter habitat in ways that would kill or injure members of those species.

Issue

Whether the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his authority under the Endangered Species Act by defining 'harm' in the statutory definition of 'take' to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife.

Rule

Under the ESA, the Secretary may reasonably interpret the term 'harm' within the statutory definition of 'take' to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife. Where Congress has not unambiguously foreclosed that interpretation and the agency's construction is reasonable in light of the text, structure, purpose, and legislative history, courts defer under Chevron.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In coastal Georgia, Pine Marsh Timber, a fictional logging company, clear-cuts a large tract containing the only nesting trees used by a listed bird species on the parcel. Biologists can show that, after the cutting, several chicks died because the loss of shelter exposed the nests and disrupted feeding.

If Pine Marsh argues that the ESA reaches only direct physical attacks on animals, how should a court rule on the validity of applying the Secretary's harm regulation here?

Explanation. The majority held that the Secretary reasonably interpreted "harm" within "take" to include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns. The statute need not unambiguously compel that interpretation; it is enough that Congress did not clearly foreclose it and the agency's reading is reasonable.