.@heinzerlaw opens panel for #Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service post- #SCOTUS argument event. "How did it go this morning?"
-
-
"I wrote a brief on behalf of a group of esteemed scientists who study habitat and conservation biology....my clients say "let's assume habitat needs a meaning, does habit necessarily imply it's habitable? That's not the way scientists look at this."
@seanhecht#SCOTUSShow this thread -
"Habitat has meaning. It's the idea that a species or creature can live somewhere. When you change habitat, you're saying that non-habitat can become habitat with reasonable changes. In that case, anything can be a habitat." Mark Miller, counsel for respondents
#SCOTUSShow this thread -
While true that gov't can't force land owner to create a habitat, the designation of critical habitat severely imposes on the owner: reduces property value, regulatory regime on any development. - Chad M. Clamage, Counsel for Petitioner
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.