A unanimous opinion from the Supreme Court, which can only mean one thing: a narrowly-drawn opinion that doesn’t resolve much.

But we’re grateful anyway, because the opinion is one that appreciates the plight of property owners whose land is subject to being designated as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act.

Intervenor Center for Biological Diversity raises an additional question in its brief, arguing that Weyerhaeuser lacks standing to challenge the critical-habitat designation because it has not suffered an injury in fact. We agree with the lower courts that the decrease in the market value of Weyerhaeuser’s land as a result of the designation is a sufficiently concrete injury for Article III purposes. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 386 (1926) (holding that a zoning ordinance that “greatly . . . reduce[d] the value of appellee’s lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses” constituted a “present invasion of appellee’s property rights”).

Slip op. at 8, n.1. And it’s one thing when the species lives on the land designated as habitat, but another entirely when the species isn’t there, and indeed in this case, couldn’t live there. 

As the opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts notes:

We granted certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether “critical habitat” under the ESA must also be habitat; and (2) whether a federal court may review an agency decision not to exclude a certain area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of such a designation. 583 U. S. ___ (2018).

* * * *

Our analysis starts with the phrase “critical habitat.” According to the ordinary understanding of how adjectives work, “critical habitat” must also be “habitat.” Adjectives modify nouns—they pick out a subset of a category that possesses a certain quality. It follows that “critical habitat” is the subset of “habitat” that is “critical” to the conservation of an endangered species.

Slip op. at 8 (footnote omitted). So “critical habitat” must also be “habitat.” Got it.

But what is “habitat?”

The Court isn’t sure, even if it is “skeptical of the Service’s position.” So back down the case goes to the circuit court to figure it out. 

Not an entirely satisfying result, but one we shall surely accept. 

Wayerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 17-71 (U.S. Nov. 27, 2018)