Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 30, 1995 TAG: 9506300081
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Knight-Ridder/Tribune
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Indignant property-rights advocates vowed to ``pound down the doors of Congress'' until they get big changes in the Endangered Species Act, the wildlife protection law at the heart of the case.
The decision, in a suit brought against the Interior Department by a group of loggers, the Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, was handed down on the last day of the court's session. The loggers' association went to court in the wake of timber-cutting restrictions protecting the spotted owl.
After what apparently was a heated behind-the-scenes debate, the justices overturned a 1994 federal appeals court ruling that said the law protects endangered and threatened wildlife only from direct actions such as hunting and trapping.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court's majority, said Congress clearly intended the 1973 law to provide ``comprehensive protection for endangered and threatened species,'' including preservation of the places where they breed, feed and shelter their young, no matter who owns those lands.
That means the Interior Department can continue to enforce a regulation banning land uses that harm rare wildlife and can bring civil or criminal cases against property owners who destroy the creatures' habitat, the court ruled. Voting with Stevens were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the majority's decision ``imposes unfairness to the point of financial ruin - not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use.'' Scalia's dissent was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case, ``Babbitt vs. Sweet Home,'' was a victory for environmentalists and a big setback for a coalition of disgruntled landowners and businesses. It comes in the midst of a heated congressional debate on the Endangered Species Act, which is two years overdue for re-enactment. Republicans and some conservative Democrats say the law places animals' needs ahead of landowners' rights, and have vowed to make major changes.
The court's ruling is ``a victory both for wildlife and people,'' said John Kostyack, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. ``People are relying on these habitat protections for many things, including potential sources of medicine, a healthy food supply, recreation, clean air and clean water. So I think everybody has a lot to celebrate.''
But the attorney for the Sweet Home loggers predicted the court's ruling will become ``Exhibit A in the case against the Endangered Species Act.''
``Congress never intended to give authority to the Secretary of the Interior to be a national zoning czar,'' said Steven Quarles, one of the loggers' attorneys.
Nancie Marzulla, president of Defenders of Property Rights, said, ``The ball is now in Congress' court, and people are going to be pounding down the doors of Congress saying, `Fix this mess.' It's one thing to protect endangered species. It's another thing to preclude and declare off-limits normal uses of land, when you've got people's livelihoods at stake.''
by CNB