Las Vegas Review-Journal on broad scope of ESA
In discussing last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on habeas relief, the Las Vegas Review-Journal makes a poignant observation:
The courts have shown a predictable tendency to take previous rulings and extend the logic of their premises, sometimes far beyond what anyone would initially have imagined. . . .
Some will reply, "That's absurd." But it would surely have been dubbed an equally "absurd" objection to the Endangered Species Act had someone risen, back in 1975, to predict that said law would block the construction of a life-saving hospital in Southern California because paving the driveway might inconvenience a "sands-loving" maggot.
Note: Pacific Legal Foundation takes no position on the Court's ruling nor on the Las Vegas Review-Journal's endorsement or lack thereof of the decision.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›