Joe Vuckovich, a summer associate at Akin Gump and a student at NYU Law School, posted an analysis of the Defenders decision at SCOTUSblog. He concludes
In the end, and although the dissenters score some good points, Justice Alito’s opinion is tightly reasoned and enjoys the unqualified support of four other justices. For the foreseeable future, National Association of Home Builders will thus govern apparent conflicts between Section 7 of the ESA and other federal statutes.
To which Roger Friedman responds in comments:
This note fails to do justice to the extent to which Defenders of Wildlife undermines TVA v. Hill and guts the Endangered Species Act. This is another example of "faux judicial restraint" embodying the reactionary project of Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia to undo the 60s and 70s (although in Scalia's case you often need all 4 digits)....
I haven't had time to read the opinion or Vuckovich's post carefully yet. Friedman's remark (later in his comment) that “The dissent clearly shows how the ESA was supposed to act across all government programs” seems compelling, but I'll withhold final judgement until I read the opinion.
(I know all two readers of this blog, including me, are waiting with bated breath for that entry.)
Leave a comment