Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton - 355 U.S. App. D.C. 303, 323 F.3d 1062 (2003)

Rule:

The protection of endangered species cannot fairly be described as a power which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the states. Rather, the preservation of endangered species is historically a federal function, and invalidating this application of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1531 et seq., would call into question the historic power of the federal government to preserve scarce resources in one locality for the future benefit of all Americans. To sustain challenges of this nature would require courts to move abruptly from preserving traditional state roles to dismantling historic federal ones

Facts:

Appellant, a real estate development company, sought to construct a 202-acre housing development in a county in California. Appellee, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, determined that the company's construction plan was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad, which appellee, the Secretary of the Interior, had listed as an endangered species since 1994. The appellant challenged the application of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1531 et seq., to its project as an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the government's motion. Appellant challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Was the application of the Endangered Species Act to the appellant’s project an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The reviewing court found that the case was governed by its prior decision in National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt (NAHB). The court also considered the application of NAHB and U.S. v. Lopez to the complaint filed by the company. The court found that the protection of endangered species could not fairly be described as a power which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states. Rather, the preservation of endangered species was historically a federal function, and invalidating that application of the Act would have called into question the historic power of the federal government to preserve scarce resources in one locality for the future benefit of all Americans. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s decision.