Supreme Court says government can't designate an area as a critical habitat if the critters aren't there to begin with

Rick Moran:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a landowner who challenged the government's designation of 1,500 acres of land as "critical habitat" for an endangered frog species.

Edward Poitevent sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who said the land in question – in his family's possession for decades – was critical to the survival of the dusky gopher frog, even though the species had not inhabited the land since 1965.
...
One small problem with Fish and Wildlife's decision: The land where the frog hadn't lived in more than 45 years had changed.

The government conceded drastic alteration to the land would be needed in order for the gopher frog to survive, including replacing thousands of trees and conducting controlled burns to kill off underbrush.

The government also said designating Poitevent's land as critical habitat could cost his family as much as $34 million, which doesn't include the cost to alter the landscape.

Poitevent and others sued, arguing the government could not designate land the frogs do not inhabit as "critical habitat." They also said the service wrongly ignored the significant economic costs its decision imposed on them.

...

It is cases like this one that caused me to start referring to the Endangered Feces Act.  Many times this act is also abused to stop the development of natural resources or stop a new subdivision.  I think it could also be a violation of the "taking clause" in the Constitution.