PC: Wikipedia
At the time of the district court’s judgment, regulations issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service further defined harm as an act that actually kills or injures wildlife. The definition could include significant habitat modification or degradation when it killed or injured wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioural patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The district court relied on this definition when concluding that Florida’s environmental regulator had violated the law.
Why did a change in federal rules send the manatee case back to court
The court vacated the judgment and injunction and asked the district court to assess the effect of the revised rule, according to an opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The change was published in the Federal Register on 14 July 2026 under the title Rescinding the Definition of “Harm” Under the Endangered Species Act. A US appeals court has sent a case over Florida’s wastewater regulations and manatee habitats back to a lower court after a federal rule changed the definition of harm under the Endangered Species Act. The lawsuit was brought by Bear Warriors United, Inc., against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The district court had ruled in favour of the Florida non-profit Bear Warriors United and issued a permanent injunction against the department. The case concerns alleged damage to manatee habitats in the North Indian River Lagoon. The district court ruled in favour of Bear Warriors and issued the permanent injunction it had requested against the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a new final rule rescinding the definition of harm on which the district court had relied While the appeal was pending.
The department challenged the decision before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
