Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 95, December 2009, Issue 8
Making Good on Good Intentions
by Katharine T. Bartlett
The State of State Anti-takeover Law
by Michal Barzuza
Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny
by James Nelson
Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard
by Andrew Stockment
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
The Confrontation Clause and the High Stakes of the Court's Consideration of Briscoe v. Virginia
Essay by Stephen Wills Murphy and Darryl K. Brown

The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases
Response by Robert F. Turner

Tiered Originality and the Dualism of Copyright Incentives
Response by Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response
Response by David E. Graham

[More]
Announcements
December Issue

January Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review announces the results of its September 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 a staff member

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   

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