THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, April 18, 1995 TAG: 9504180321
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 80 lines
The Supreme Court, in a spirited argument over the Endangered Species Act, debated Monday whether the government for 20 years has wrongly interpreted the law to ban destruction of wildlife habitat on private property.
Eight of the nine justices fired questions at lawyers for the timber industry and the Clinton administration. The case could lead to one of the court's most important environmental rulings since Congress passed the law in 1973.
If the government loses the case, ``it is going to make it very difficult to enforce the Endangered Species Act at all on private lands,'' Assistant Interior Secretary George Frampton Jr. said after the arguments.
The case centers on loggers in Oregon who want to cut trees in areas with the threatened northern spotted owl. But the discussion before the high court Monday ranged from goats and butterflies to koalas and even rare bugs splattered on car windshields.
``Couldn't we pick an uglier example . . . than a koala bear?'' Justice Antonin Scalia asked during a light moment.
``You pick the cutest, handsomest little critter,'' Scalia told Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton appointee who asked the most aggressive questions of the timber industry lawyer, John Macleod.
Scalia argued for a narrow interpretation of the prohibited ``taking'' of threatened or endangered species.
``To `take' an animal refers to hunters. Historically, I've never heard it used in any other way,'' Scalia said. ``The whole spotted owl thing is based on that notion that people who harvest trees are taking owls . . . To say this is taking an animal seems to me just weird.''
Breyer said he didn't read the law to apply only when an animal is harmed intentionally, as the industry argued. He suggested it might apply as well when ``the person knows it is going, as a consequence, to kill a few rare birds.''
Breyer said a farmer who set up a battery of guns to kill crows eating his corn and knew the guns also could kill rare birds should be held responsible for the deaths of the rare birds.
``I don't see how Congress could pass the act and not prohibit the person who, for other reasons, is shooting guns off and happens to wipe out the species,'' Breyer said.
Justice David Souter agreed.
``It seems to me you're wrong when you say it's got to be purposeful,'' he said to industry lawyers.
Justice Anthony Kennedy also suggested it was appropriate to consider ``what are the logical, likely . . . consequences'' of the habitat destruction.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only court member who refrained from questioning the lawyers. A ruling is expected as soon as June.
Both sides agree the law outlaws the direct hunting, trapping or killing of threatened or endangered species. They also agree the law outlaws destruction of a protected species' habitat on federal land, but they disagree about the application of that protection on private land. ILLUSTRATION: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Steven Quarels, of the Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a
Greater Oregon, discusses his groups' case Monday at the Supreme
Court.
COURT HIGHLIGHTS
In other action Monday, the court:
Agreed to use a lawsuit stemming from the 1983 downing of a
Korean airliner over the Soviet Union to clarify what damages can be
awarded when Americans die on international flights.
Refused to shield a Secret Service agent from being sued for
taking along a CBS camera crew when he searched a Brooklyn, N.Y.,
home three years ago. The lawsuit says he violated the residents'
right to privacy.
KEYWORDS: ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTED SPECIES SUPREME COURT by CNB