A major legal challenge over the Endangered Species Act reached a turning point this week, as a federal court in California struck down rules that had weakened vital wildlife protections. On March 30, the Northern District of California found that the 2019 regulatory changes were unlawful, striking them down and reinstating the prior rules.

Less than a day later, a separate federal action moved in a very different direction. On March 31, the Endangered Species Committee granted a rare exemption allowing Gulf of America oil and gas operations to bypass ESA protections on the basis of national security, highlighting a sharp contrast in how the law is being applied.

The March 30 court’s ruling makes clear that agencies must follow the ESA’s long-established standards when making decisions about threatened and endangered species. That includes relying on the best available science, accounting for impacts to habitat, and evaluating cumulative effects. The decision does not introduce new requirements but reinstates how the law is meant to operate.

The case was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians, represented by Earthjustice. The groups argued that the 2019 changes weakened how agencies assess harm to protected species and the ecosystems they depend on.

“Extinction is forever, and today’s ruling strikes down regulations that deprived vulnerable species of a last chance at survival,” said Ben Levitan, Earthjustice senior attorney.

“For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act has been one of the most successful conservation laws we have,” said Joanna Zhang, endangered species advocate with WildEarth Guardians. “This victory gives vulnerable species and the ecosystems we all rely on a chance to recover in the face of the climate crisis and relentless pressure from extractive industries.” 

Separately, the Endangered Species Committee’s March 31 vote allows oil and gas operations in the Gulf of America to move forward without complying with ESA safeguards. A separate ruling allowed the meeting and vote to proceed.

Together, these developments reveal a major tension: while the court has restored the ESA’s long-standing protections, the Gulf exemption casts doubt on how consistently those safeguards will be applied moving forward.