Will a Tiny, Blind, Subterranean Bug Be the Undoing of the Federal Leviathan?

In 1942, deciding the case of Wickard v. Filburn, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the wheat grown by an Ohio farmer purely for his own use and consumption—not for sale—to “exert a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” This infamous decision led many to conclude that the scope of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause is essentially unlimited.

Now that understanding may be upended by a tiny, blind arachnid known as the “Bone Cave harvestman” (scientific name: Texella reyesi). This cave-dwelling invertebrate, which resembles a spider, has been included by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Endangered Species list since 1988. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and its enabling regulations, the “habitats” of endangered species cannot be modified or “degraded” without a federal permit.

The problem is, the Bone Cave harvestman is known to exist only in central Texas—only in Williamson and Travis Counties, to be exact.

John Yearwood, a third generation ranch owner whose 865-acre spread north of Austin has been in his family since 1871, is suing to remove the insect from protected status. State surveyors discovered Texella reyesi living underground on Yearwood’s property more than a decade ago when considering a road expansion project adjacent to his ranch. As a result, Yearwood, a 71-year old Vietnam vet, has been forbidden to alter his property or “harass” the insect with noise, light, or activity. Landowners who knowingly harm an endangered species or its habitat can face up to $50,000 in fines and up to a year in prison. The insect’s “habitat” is the limestone caves and crevices that are ubiquitous in central Texas. Due to the Endangered Species Act, Yearwood is being held hostage by a tiny subterranean insect that hardly anyone has ever seen or heard of.  (The facts are reported here and here.)

Yearwood’s beef is two-fold. First, the use and enjoyment of his privately owned land have been significantly curtailed, even though he is solely responsible for maintaining and paying taxes on the property. Federal law, he says, requires him to provide a preserve for the insect—for the benefit of “everyone in America”—at his own expense. “I pay taxes on the land every year. And there’s no way I can sell it—nobody will buy it.” Incredibly, development within 35 feet of a known Texella reyesi dwelling requires $400,000 an acre in mitigation permits!

The rancher’s second objection is the one that could transform constitutional law. He argues that because the insect is so far known to live only one state, it does not—unlike, say, growing wheat—“exert a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Because Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers, Yearwood’s lawyers contend that the lack of an interstate nexus for a wholly intrastate listing renders the regulation unlawful.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, is representing Yearwood. The foundation maintains that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to “regulate commerce between the states,” does not extend to the Bone Cave harvestman (or BCH).

The foundation distinguishes the regulation of endangered insects from the cultivation of wheat (or, pursuant to the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich decision, of home-grown medicinal marijuana):

The BCH lives solely in isolated caves in central Texas. It is not bought or traded in interstate commerce, and has no substantial effect on interstate commerce. Likewise, BCH spiders are not a fungible good, the regulation of which is necessary to regulate an interstate market. Accordingly, neither the Commerce Clause, nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grant Congress the authority to regulate BCH takes.

Property owners have been skirmishing with the federal government over Endangered Species Act designations for many years. In late 2014, for example, a federal court ruled that a Utah prairie dog was improperly listed as an endangered species because it lives in only one state.

Others facing similar restrictions in other states have been trying to replicate the Utah ruling, which is on appeal to the Tenth Circuit. What makes Yearwood’s lawsuit—now pending in federal district court in Austin—unique is that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has weighed in on behalf of the property owners. Last month, Paxton filed an amicus curiae brief that is remarkable for its fidelity to the principles of federalism and limited government.

A first-term Republican who has made a name for himself by obtaining nationwide injunctions against several controversial Obama administration initiatives (for example here, here, and here), Paxton pulled no punches in this brief:

Texas appears as amicus curiae to preserve the constitutional limits that prevent the federal government from regulating purely intrastate, noneconomic activity. Texas is impacted by Defendants’ interference in a local matter that is “clearly without [the federal government’s] powers.” Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (Feb. 23, 1791), reprinted in Hamilton: Writings 621 (Joanne B. Freeman ed., 2001). Texas files this amicus brief to contest a clear overreach in the use of federal power, because every citizen suffers harm when the federal government acts outside its constitutional authority.

Paxton argues that GDF Realty Investment, Ltd. v. Norton, a 2003 Fifth Circuit decision[1] upholding the designation of the Bone Cave harvestman under a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause[2], has been superseded by two decisions of the Supreme Court: Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). (The latter upheld Obamacare, but not on Commerce Clause grounds.) He maintains that in Raich, the Supreme Court adopted a narrower interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, requiring a “clear and direct connection between the regulation of the intrastate activity and a valid regulation of interstate commerce.”[3] Applying the more rigorous test, Sebelius found Obamacare’s individual mandate wanting under the Commerce Clause.[4]

Accordingly, Paxton asserts that GDF Realty is no longer good law, and that under the prevailing standard, designation of the “Bone Cave harvestman” as an endangered species under federal law is unconstitutional. “Raich and Sebelius,” he writes, “now make it apparent that the BCH rules are not a constitutionally necessary means to a larger regulation of interstate commerce.”[5]

Throughout his brief, Paxton cites the views of the Framers, the Federalist Papers, and Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). It is a tour de force of originalist reasoning.

Paxton has stated publicly that

Under the Constitution, the federal government can only act when there is a direct logical connection between the subject being regulated and interstate commerce. A spider that only exists underground in two Texas counties and is neither a bought nor sold commodity fails that test by definition. For such localized species, it is the state and county, not the federal government, which can best address conservation.” (Emphasis added.)

If this view prevails in John Yearwood’s lawsuit, or on appeal, the scope of the Endangered Species Act will have shrunk significantly—and with it the legitimacy of federal meddling in many other areas pursuant to a limitless reading of the Commerce Clause.

All because of an obscure bug living under a rock in central Texas.

 

[1] GDF Realty Investment, Ltd. v. Norton, 326 F.3d 622 (5th Circuit, 2003). Anticipating the doctrinal developments in Raich and Sebelius, the stalwart Judge Edith Jones dissented from the Fifth Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc. 362 F.3d 286 (5th Circuit, 2004).

[2] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

[3] Amicus brief at p. 7.

[4] Ibid., p. 8.

[5] Ibid., p. 10.

Mark Pulliam

Mark Pulliam is a contributing editor of Law and Liberty.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts

Comments

  1. nobody.really says

    “I pay taxes on the land every year. And there’s no way I can sell it—nobody will buy it.”

    1. Actually, I’m a bit cash-strapped at the moment….

    2. Does the bug case present any Commerce Clause issues not already presented by the prairie dog case? Or is the bug case especially interesting because it provided an excuse for the Texas Attorney General to write a cool brief?

    3. If your interest is Originalism, maybe this is the major issue. If your interest is autonomy, the larger issue is the regulatory takings. To my thinking, THAT is the area of law that warrants greater reform.

    Similarly, I did not find the ACA birth control mandate problematic. Have a conscientious objection? Then do what conscientious objectors do: Refuse to comply and bear the consequences. The problem was not with the mandate, but with financial consequences that arguably exceeded the social value of providing birth control coverage. And the choice to impose consequences that exceeds the social value of compliance is a choice to punish free exercise of religion–a Constitutional no-no.

    In short, government may well have the power to compel people to do pro-social things, or the bear the cost that their conduct imposes on society. But government should not impose arbitrary costs, and should bear the costs that pro-social conduct imposes on private actors.

    • gabe says

      #1 – Heck, we all are!

      #2 – I guess he may be said to have gotten a bug in his brief(s?)!

      #3 – Yep, Takings does merit some reform – However, I would think that the over-extension of the Commerce Clause and it’s detrimental impact(s) upon the 9th and 10th Amendments would be of SOME concern to an interested and impartial observer.

      #4 – To reduce constitutional propriety to a question of “undue” cost would appear to reduce the constitution itself to something that may best be arbitrated / adjudicated by “known experts” capable of executing cost-benefit analysis AND, while we are at it, determining definitively what does or does not constitute “pro” social conduct.

      Nobody.really believes that that is not only possible but is laudatory!

  2. Johnt says

    Eagles I can understand and appreciate, bugs I can step on, fanaticism I wonder about. especially from government employees looking for additional job security, as if they need it.

    • nobody.really says

      ….government employees looking for additional job security, as if they need it.

      Oh, federal employees how have almost complete job security: Trump has imposed a hiring ban.

      I have a friend who works as a supervisor for the IRS. In a fit of pique, Republicans had effectively frozen the IRS’s operations for years. As a result, she dared not fire even the worst employees because she knew that she would have no opportunity to hire replacements. Now Trump has created this same dynamic for the entire federal government.

      • gabe says

        And thank goodness for that!

        Of course, we all know about a “fit of pique” having endured the closure of National Parks, museums, etc during the Big 0’s “shutdown”

        Oh, the “humanity” of it all.

        Perhaps, your friend would have been better off firing “the best employees” – after all, wasn’t Lois Lerner one of the better employees – indeed, a rising star!

      • Scott Amorian says

        When I worked for the State of Oregon we also had a “hiring freeze.” It was a joke. The hiring really involved available positions, not people. When a freeze was imposed no new positions were created. Managers kept a number of unfilled positions available so they could increase staff if they needed to, even during a “hiring freeze.” But by the logic of government, not adding new positions is a hiring freeze.

        Watch out for the smoke and mirrors. Government managers have been playing this game for a very long time and they know all of the tricks.

        Make sure that a hiring freeze really means no increase in the number of government employees and that it demonstrates a slow decrease in employees due to retirements and turnovers.

        … and if the IRS has employees who should be let go, they shouldn’t be working there now because they are liabilities. Bad employees are bad because overall they increase the amount of work that needs to be done instead of decreasing it. The complaint makes no sense from this business guy’s perspective. It’s a non-issue. Smoke and mirrors again.

        • nobody.really says

          if the IRS has employees who should be let go, they shouldn’t be working there now because they are liabilities. Bad employees are bad because overall they increase the amount of work that needs to be done instead of decreasing it. The complaint makes no sense from this business guy’s perspective. It’s a non-issue. Smoke and mirrors again.

          As reported in The Atlantic, because of the federal hiring freeze, “We can’t even afford to get rid of people who suck.”

  3. Buckland says

    “As a result, Yearwood, a 71-year old Vietnam vet, has been forbidden to alter his property or “harass” the insect with noise, light, or activity.”

    Insect? Groan.

    Harvestmen are arachnids, closely related to spiders. The daddy longlegs is the best known representative of the group.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>