English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In an attempt to reverse the trend toward species extinction, Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") in 1973.3 The ESA declares it illegal to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any "endangered species."' The ESA's broad prohibition against almost any conduct-whether intentional or accidental-that interferes with the activities of an endangered species reflects Congress's considerable concern with species preservation. In its sole pronouncement on the social value of the ESA, the Supreme Court generously appraised Congress's commitment to the preservation of endangered species. In Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill, the Court found that the ESA's structure and legislative history demonstrated conclusively that Congress intended "to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost."" Congress considered the goal of

The Endangered Species Act and Ursine Usurpations: A Grizzly Tale of Two Takings