Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Science of Exclusion: Race and Social Capital in Housing Policy
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

Notes Accepted from the March 2013 Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

September 2009, Volume 95, Issue 5

The Hapless Ecosystem: A Federalist Argument in Favor of an Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species Act
by Scott Schwartz
95 Va. L. Rev. 1325 (2009)   View PDF

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), first passed in 1973, is possibly the most wide-ranging of the protective environmental statutes. Grounded in Congress’s ability to regulate interstate commerce, it purports to protect biodiversity by keeping animal species from going extinct. Although there have been numerous challenges to the ESA on the basis that it goes beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, all of these were narrowly defeated in the Courts of Appeals. With the recent appointments to the Supreme Court, however, the Act remains vulnerable. Shifting the Act to focus on ecosystems, rather than on individual species, could insulate it from additional federalism challenges. Ecosystems are more directly tied into interstate commerce and the economy than individual species through a number of factors, including “ecosystem services.” Since biodiversity is important to maintaining ecosystem health, Congress could still protect endangered species as a part of ecosystems while maintaining a link to interstate commerce. Although this could lead to some changes in scope to the Act, it remains the most faithful way to keep Congress’s intention of protecting biodiversity, but still avoiding constitutional concerns.

Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   |  Bloomberg Bloomberg   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.