Can agencies designate critical habitat where a species no longer survives?

Verified source milestones

1. 2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether the Endangered Species Act allows agencies to designate critical habitat in areas where the species no longer exists. Weyerhaeuser contends the statute requires the land to currently support the species. The government argues the statute permits designating areas that need improvements to support the species.

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 1, 2018.

What each side wants

Weyerhaeuser wants the Court to reverse the lower court's action. It seeks a ruling that the agency cannot designate critical habitat where the species does not currently survive.

The government wants the Court to affirm the lower court's action. It seeks a ruling that the agency can designate critical habitat in areas that need improvements to support the species.

What each side says

Weyerhaeuser argues the statute requires critical habitat to currently support the species. It contends the agency cannot designate land where the species is absent.

The government argues the statute allows designating areas that need reasonable improvements. It contends the agency can designate land even if the species does not currently survive there.

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked where in the statute the government finds its position. She questioned the statutory basis for the government's argument.

Justice Kagan asked why the statute would prefer extinction over designating an area. She noted the result seemed counterintuitive to her.

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of critical habitat designations. It determines whether agencies can protect species by designating land that currently lacks the species. The outcome shapes how agencies manage endangered species recovery efforts.

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 29-13
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 29-13
• Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11

Revision history

1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript · 2026-08-30 18:13:40.647226+00:00

   Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript · 2026-09-05 03:22:24+00:00

   Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.