{
  "id": "95-778",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "95-778",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 103953,
      "date": "1995-07-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T21:03:28.998941",
      "title": "Habitat Modification and the Endangered Species Act: The Sweet Home Decision",
      "summary": "On June 29, 1995, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in  Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter\n of\nCommunities for a Great Oregon  upheld the regulation of the Fish and Wildlife Service defining\n\"harm\" for purposes of the \"take\" prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act. \n(1)  The regulation\nincludes significant habitat modification within the meaning of \"harm.\" The  Sweet Home \ndecision\nresolves a difference between the 9th Circuit, which had upheld the regulation, \n(2)  and the D.C. Circuit,\nwhich had struck it down.  (3) \n     1.  \u00a0U.S. No. 94-859; 1995 LEXIS 4463\n  2.  \u00a0Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources,\n639 F. 2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981)(Palila I); 852 F.\n2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1988)(Palila II).\n  3.  \u00a0The D.C. Circuit initially upheld the regulation, but later\nreversed: Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for\na Great Oregon v. Babbitt, 1 F. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1993); 17 F. 3d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1994).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/95-778",
          "sha1": "0278b26425c26efd3c71f025ce01a758e275efb1",
          "filename": "files/19950706_95-778_0278b26425c26efd3c71f025ce01a758e275efb1.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19950706_95-778_0278b26425c26efd3c71f025ce01a758e275efb1.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}