Butler, Stephen2019-09-252019-09-252010-10-27200700461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175743"The Endangered Species Act (ESA), a common target for opponents of environmental regulation, recently saw its enforcement powers eroded with the Center for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.1 In Hamilton, the court found that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s failure to designate critical habitat triggered the statute of limitations and that a theory of continuing violation did not apply. The six-year limit, as interpreted by the Hamilton court, applies even when the underlying ESA violation—in this case, a mandatory duty to designate critical habitat—remains unresolved. The Hamilton decision ignores the purposes of the ESA in order to adhere to a narrow reading of the Federal Tort Claims Act; in doing so, it neglects to provide for the very species that the ESA was intended to protect." (p. 1, 9)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderenvironmental protectionlawPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsBiodiversity ethicsArticle