Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Babbitt - 327 U.S. App. D.C. 248, 130 F.3d 1041 (1997)

Rule:

The power of Congress to regulate the channels of interstate commerce provides a justification for the Endangered Species Act § 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1), for two reasons. First, the prohibition against takings of an endangered species is necessary to enable the government to control the transport of the endangered species in interstate commerce. Second, the prohibition on takings of endangered animals falls under Congress's authority to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses.

Facts:

Plaintiff home builders, county, and city, sought to expand an intersection in a habitat area used by an endangered species. Defendants, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, informed plaintiffs that the expansion would likely lead to a taking of the species in violation of the Endangered Species Act (Act) § 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that the Endangered Species Act § 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1), was a valid exercise of Congress's power pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Was the Endangered Species Act a valid exercise of Congress's power pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of defendants. The court held that Congress had a rational purpose in regulating endangered species. The court held that the prohibition against takings of an endangered species was necessary to enable the government to control the transport of the endangered species in interstate commerce, and fell under Congress's authority to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses. The court further held that such takings would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce by depriving commercial actors of access to an important natural resource, biodiversity. Lastly, the court held that Congress had the power to prevent interstate competition that would result in the destruction of endangered species.