State wildlife agencies commonly claim they are entitled to manage wildlife under the public trust doctrine (PTD). This assertion is frequently made in judicial proceedings, with state requests that their managerial authority be given due force throughout state, private, federal, and even tribal lands. One might conclude that a rich body of PTD practices and policies exists for wildlife; in reality, the PTD in state wildlife management proves to be ephemeral.

On May 7, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 13921, Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth, stating that it is U.S. policy to “facilitate aquaculture projects through regulatory transparency and long-term strategic planning.” To further this policy, the Order directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a nationwide permit for aquaculture operations, and tasks the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a variety of planning- and permit-related responsibilities.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA’s) protections for critical habitat. Foremost among them is a question one might think was long settled: what is “habitat”? In a short ruling, the Weyerhaeuser Court opined that “critical habitat” must first be “habitat,” but it did not attempt to define exactly what habitat is or how much deference the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should get on what is both a biological and policy question.