
U.S.
Supreme Court to Decide
Whether ESA Listing Exceeds Federal Power
Written By: E. Jay
Donovan
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date:
April 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The U.S. Supreme Court
has agreed to decide whether the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution gives the federal government authority to regulate
Alabama
sturgeon under the
Endangered Species Act.
A lawsuit contending the
federal government overstepped its bounds in seeking to regulate
Alabama
sturgeon was filed by
attorneys with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), an organization that
litigates on behalf of property owners against government overreach. PLF
attorneys represent the Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, an alliance
of
Alabama
businesses, agricultural
associations, and other water users who would be adversely affected by
federal regulation.
The Supreme Court
announced on January 4 its decision to hear the case.
No Interstate
Connections
Critical to the issue of
federal oversight authority is the fact that the
Alabama
sturgeon is not found
outside of limited areas in
Alabama
and is not used for any commercial purpose.
"We are very
gratified that the Supreme Court has accepted this case, which raises
major constitutional questions about the appropriate limits of federal
power," said M. Reed Hopper, an attorney with Pacific Legal
Foundation.
"Does federal power
to regulate commerce among the states extend to purely local land and
water use matters, and local species, that don't have a role in
interstate commerce?" Hopper asked. "Will a balance of power
between federal and state authority continue to be a meaningful concept
in our constitutional system? That is what is at stake in this
case."
Clarifying Prior
Decisions
The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit upheld the federal listing of the
Alabama
sturgeon in a 2007 case. In
asking the Supreme Court to review that decision, PLF cited Supreme
Court decisions in 1995 and 2000 that set limits on federal regulatory
powers. In both of the cases cited, the Court ruled the federal
government did not have authority to regulate things that did not flow
through or substantially affect interstate commerce.
PLF argues none of the
prongs of the Court's "substantially affects" test is
satisfied in this case.
According to PLF, the
Alabama
sturgeon listing has
nothing to do with economic activity; doesn't include any limiting
principle that would confine federal regulation to interstate commerce;
makes no express findings that show a relationship between the listing
and interstate commercial activity; and provides no clear, demonstrated
link between the
Alabama
sturgeon and interstate
commerce.
"[I]f the federal
government can regulate a wholly intrastate, noncommercial species, and
its habitat ... there is no activity that the government could not
regulate," states the PLF petition.
National Impact
"There's a clear
need for the Supreme Court to address the questions raised by our
petition," Hopper said. "The impacts are national in scope--as
many as half of the estimated 1,300 species listed under the ESA are
found on private property. So the federal government is regulating a
vast number of species--and a vast amount of privately owned
land--without clear justification under the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution.
"Lower courts have
been unable to agree on a constitutional rationale to support the ESA.
And the fundamental concept that our federal government is one of
limited powers must be preserved and protected," Hopper concluded.
E. Jay Donovan
(ejd38@hotmail.com)
is a freelance writer based in
Tampa
,
Florida
.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those
who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22939
|