1、1 U.S. No. 94-859; 1995 LEXIS 44632 Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 639 F. 2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981)(PalilaI); 852 F. 2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1988)(Palila II).3 The D.C. Circuit initially upheld the regulation, but later reversed: Sweet Home Chapter ofCommunities for a Great Oregon
2、 v. Babbitt, 1 F. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1993); 17 F. 3d 1463 (D.C. Cir.1994).4 16 U.S.C. 1532(19).5 50 C.F.R. 17.3. This regulation has been in place since 1975, but was amended in 1981 toemphasize that actual death or injury of a protected animal is necessary for a violation.Congressional Research Servic
3、e The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 95-778 AJuly 6, 1995Habitat Modification and the EndangeredSpecies Act: The Sweet Home Decision -name redacted-Legislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionOn June 29, 1995, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Babb
4、itt v. Sweet HomeChapter of Communities for a Great Oregon upheld the regulation of the Fish andWildlife Service defining harm for purposes of the take prohibitions of theEndangered Species Act.1 The regulation includes significant habitat modification withinthe meaning of harm. The Sweet Home decis
升级VIP 