Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ US https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Citing “Killing a Mockingbird,” the judge overturned the Trump administration repealing a historic bird protection law

Citing “Killing a Mockingbird,” the judge overturned the Trump administration repealing a historic bird protection law



Tuesday’s decision was the latest legal hurdle for the Trump administration as it systematically seeks to weaken or weaken dozens of federal environmental defenses. In his decision, Caproni said the administration had gone too far.

“There is nothing in the MBTA text to suggest that in order for it to be banned, the activity must be targeted specifically at birds,” wrote Caproni, who was nominated in New York’s Southern District by President Obama in 2012. ” Nor does the status prohibit the deliberate killing of migratory birds. And it is certainly not said that only “certain”

; murders are forbidden. “

The changes made by the Trump administration have largely benefited oil companies, which have paid most of the fines for violating the act, according to an analysis by the National Audubon Society.

According to the administration, even BP, the company responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that killed about 1 million birds, will not be punished under the law. A landowner who destroys endangered owl nests without checking before building a barn or oil company that fails to cover tar tar in which birds can dive and die cannot be held liable in the same way as have decades.

Caproni ruled that allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Police to impose the act only if officers could prove intent violated federal administrative law and released the changes. Revoking the rule change, she called on the interior department with a passage from “Kill a Mockingbird.”

“It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, but it is also a crime,” Caproni wrote. “This is the letter of the law of the last century. But if the Home Office has its way, many mockeries and other migratory birds that delight people and sustain ecosystems across the country will be killed without legal consequences. “

Eight state’s attorneys challenged the administration when it weakened the act two years ago. Led by then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, the coalition included the best lawyers in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, California and New Mexico.

The court joined their case with another challenge filed by the National Audubon Society and many other conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity.

“This is a huge victory for birds and it comes at a critical time – science tells us that we have lost 3 billion birds in less than human lives and that two-thirds of birds in North America are at risk of extinction due to climate change.” , said in a statement Sarah Greenberger, acting chief conservation officer of the National Audit Society.

Home Affairs spokesman Connor Swanson defended the rule change. “Today’s opinion undermines the interpretation of the law with common sense and contradicts recent efforts shared across the political spectrum to decriminalize involuntary conduct,” he wrote in an email.

The Trump administration has suffered many setbacks in its efforts to suppress long-standing environmental protections, calling them difficult requirements that have harmed industry and development.

In February, a federal judge in Idaho canceled nearly 1 million acres of oil and gas for rent in the federal states of the West, announcing an earlier ruling that the Trump administration was “arbitrary and capricious” in a way that limited public contributions to those rents out.

In the weeks leading up to the 2018 rule change for the Migratory Birds Treaty, the administration lost three lawsuits in three consecutive days. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 2018 that the Environmental Protection Agency’s move to delay new chemical and safety requirements is “arbitrary and capricious.”

A day earlier, a judge at the U.S. District Court in South Carolina restored a rule in 26 states restricting dredging and filling streams and waterways on the grounds that the EPA had not requested sufficient public contribution. Earlier, a judge from the U.S. District Court in Montana ordered the State Department to make a more extensive statement on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL route through Nebraska.

The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918 came into force after several species of common birds became extinct. The administration’s actions turned decades of efforts by the Republican and Democratic administrations to protect animals as they circled the globe. The law covers such different birds as eagles, red knots, geese in Canada and vultures.

Oil companies were the biggest beneficiaries of the new interpretation, according to an analysis by the Audubon Society. They were responsible for 90 percent of the accidental actions prosecuted under the act, which resulted in fines of $ 6,500 for the violation. Two catastrophic oil spills, BP Deepwater Horizon, spilled from Louisiana in 2010 and the wreck of the oil tanker Exxon Valdez off Alaska in 1989 accounted for 97 percent of the fines, according to the Audubon Society.

By repealing the change in the rules of the internal department, Caproni postponed how the Congress formulated the law. “It is illegal to hunt, capture, capture, kill, attempt to capture, capture or kill… in any way начин at any time or in any way any migratory bird included in the terms of the United States-UK Convention to protect migratory birds, “the statement said.

Caproni has asked state attorneys and environmentalists to release the Interior Ministry’s decision. Lawyers for the Home Office wanted to delay the court’s funds to undermine the will of Congress when it passed the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and amended it over the years. The judge rejected this attempt.

“The interior does not indicate that the release of the opinion will disrupt the agency’s implementation or other efforts,” she wrote.

“The court ruling is a winning victory for conservationists who have fought to maintain the historical interpretation of the Migratory Birds Act to protect migratory birds from industrial damage,” said Jamie Rapaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife. statement.

Clark called the federal action a wrong move that “would leave the fate of more than 1,000 species of birds in the hands of industry.”


Source link