Name of case: Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon
Court: United States Supreme Justice rendered the final decision in the case.
Citation: The citation given to the case was 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
Parties and their roles: (the plaintiff) consisted of Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon along with several lawn-care owners. These plaintiffs pursued criminal charges due to the Secretary of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) about the definition term of taking and harm, regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Moreover, (the defendant) consist of the FWS Director, Department of Interior (DI), Sec. Babbitt’s comprehension of the ESA and his perception of the word harm and the definition …show more content…
Therefore, amending the ESA was very much needed to ensure the safety of these animals. The term take is no longer an issue in regards to the definition; however the term harm has several different meaning and is still a term that upheld due to the word being so diverse.
Court of Appeals decision:
The Court of Appeals initially decision similar to the District Court.
Supreme Court Decision: The final determination of the Supreme Court was diverse from the previous court cases. The Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed the facts. However after granting a reenactment the Court of Appeal changed their decision and side with the plaintiff. This strategy holds to the wording and language of these companies needs to be kept.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court stated that the word harm interpretation has several definition meanings should read in the context of only applying it to the individual who is doing something morally wrong or as an injustice to others or
Court: United States Supreme Justice rendered the final decision in the case.
Citation: The citation given to the case was 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
Parties and their roles: (the plaintiff) consisted of Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon along with several lawn-care owners. These plaintiffs pursued criminal charges due to the Secretary of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) about the definition term of taking and harm, regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Moreover, (the defendant) consist of the FWS Director, Department of Interior (DI), Sec. Babbitt’s comprehension of the ESA and his perception of the word harm and the definition …show more content…
Therefore, amending the ESA was very much needed to ensure the safety of these animals. The term take is no longer an issue in regards to the definition; however the term harm has several different meaning and is still a term that upheld due to the word being so diverse.
Court of Appeals decision:
The Court of Appeals initially decision similar to the District Court.
Supreme Court Decision: The final determination of the Supreme Court was diverse from the previous court cases. The Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed the facts. However after granting a reenactment the Court of Appeal changed their decision and side with the plaintiff. This strategy holds to the wording and language of these companies needs to be kept.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court stated that the word harm interpretation has several definition meanings should read in the context of only applying it to the individual who is doing something morally wrong or as an injustice to others or