SEATTLE — Washington Attorney General Nick Brown is part of a coalition of 21 state attorneys general filing two lawsuits to stop recent federal rule changes they say would erode long-standing protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Scope of the legal challenge
The lawsuits, announced Wednesday, will target new regulations issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. One suit will be filed against the Fish and Wildlife Service alone; the other names both agencies, according to the attorneys general coalition.
At issue is a set of regulatory revisions that, according to the coalition, narrow federal authority to limit activities that harm species and their habitats. The states say the changes make it easier for federal agencies, private actors or individuals to alter or degrade habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered.
“The federal government’s attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act threatens the habitats of orcas, sockeye salmon, and other endangered species that are part of our economy, culture, and way of life,” Brown said. “These illegal actions ignore the will of Washingtonians and people across the United States, who overwhelmingly support protecting endangered species.”
Why Washington joined the challenge
Washington officials emphasized local stakes: the Southern Resident orca population, several salmon runs and other listed wildlife depend on the habitat protections the states say are being weakened.
The coalition pointed to long-term recoveries under the Endangered Species Act to buttress its argument. They note the law covers more than 1,600 plant and animal species and protects millions of acres of designated critical habitat nationwide. The attorneys general also cited a conservation track record they say shows the law’s effectiveness.
| Metric | Figure |
|---|---|
| Species protected under ESA | ~1,600 |
| Species saved from extinction since ESA passage (coalition claim) | 99% |
| Southern Resident orca population (1995) | 98 whales |
| Southern Resident orca population (current) | 74 whales |
Regulatory changes in dispute
The first suit challenges revision to the regulatory definition of “harm.” Under prior guidance, federal regulators considered actions that significantly modify or degrade habitat as harmful to listed species. The new rules, the coalition argues, narrow that definition and could remove core protections for species classified as “threatened.”
The second suit contests other changes affecting how critical habitat is designated and how protections are applied to species protection decisions. The coalition says the cumulative effect of the revisions is to reduce the law’s reach at a time when many species and ecosystems remain under pressure.
Conservation and local impact
Washington’s environmental and fishing communities have long focused on habitat protections to support salmon runs and the orcas that feed on them. The coalition gave specific attention to the Southern Resident orcas, which were listed as endangered in the mid-2000s and have struggled to recover in Puget Sound and surrounding waters.
Attorneys general from other states joined Washington in framing the legal challenge as both a defense of conservation gains and a check on federal agency discretion. The coalition argues public support for protecting endangered species remains strong across the country.
- Who filed: 21 state attorneys general, including Washington AG Nick Brown.
- Targets: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Marine Fisheries Service (in one suit).
- Main claim: New rules unlawfully weaken habitat protections and narrow the definition of harm for listed species.
What happens next
The lawsuits will be filed in federal court. If the states obtain a preliminary injunction, the contested rules could be paused while litigation proceeds. Legal experts say such challenges can take months or years to resolve and can include appeals that reach federal appellate courts.
For Washington residents concerned about orcas, salmon and other species, the outcome could affect habitat protections for shoreline, river and marine environments across the state. The state’s legal move places it at the center of a national dispute over how the country balances economic activity with long-established environmental safeguards.
WE NEWS will monitor filings and court developments as the cases proceed.
