Main content

Home

Menu

View
Wiki Version:
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018), raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act's protections for critical habitat. In a short ruling, the Court opined that 'critical habitat' must be 'habitat,' but it did not attempt to define 'habitat' as a scientific or legal matter. Here we provide a brief scientific and legal analysis and propose a definition of 'habitat' that the Services could adopt to address this gap.
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
Accept
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.
Accept
×

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.

Copyright © 2011-2024 Center for Open Science | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Status | API
TOP Guidelines | Reproducibility Project: Psychology | Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology