For decades, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has used a mix of incentives and regulations to help wildlife recover. One of the most effective tools in that toolbox is allowing limited, regulated trade in certain species to give them economic value. When species have value, people have a reason to conserve them—whether it’s landowners preserving habitat, ranchers breeding populations, or businesses supporting conservation efforts.
But a recent court decision threatens to upend that approach. In Art & Antique Dealers League of America, Inc. v. Seggos, the Second Circuit ruled that states can override the ESA’s carefully crafted balance between conservation and commerce, blocking trade in species even when federal law allows it. If this decision stands, it would give every state the power to veto federal conservation programs that rely on market incentives to recover wildlife.
This isn’t just a legal technicality—it’s a serious problem for conservation. The ruling prioritizes red tape over results, forcing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into a slow, bureaucratic permitting process instead of allowing broader programs that have successfully recovered species. And it ignores decades of conservation success stories that prove markets can help wildlife thrive. Just look at the American alligator, the scimitar-horned oryx, or white rhinoceros—all examples of how giving species value can lead to their recovery.
That’s why PERC has joined Safari Club International in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case. If we want to continue using the best tools for conservation, we can’t let misguided legal decisions strip away incentives that work. The ESA was designed to recover species, and that means keeping every tool on the table—including the power of markets to drive real conservation success.
