If you read the definition of critical harms, you’ll see the $500m doesn’t have to come in one of those two forms. It can also be “Other grave harms to public safety and security that are of comparable severity”.
I have a hard time imagining a Court ruling that “Other grave harms to public safety and security that are of comparable severity” could embrace something so different-in-kind than the listed items.
Well, “fish” is a statutorily defined term that clearly includes all invertebrates. What did you want the court to do, ignore the statutory text? Arguably, that outcome supports the notion that the courts are less likely to just ignore text limiting the kinds of harm that are cognizable, not more likely, as you seem to be arguing.
If you read the definition of critical harms, you’ll see the $500m doesn’t have to come in one of those two forms. It can also be “Other grave harms to public safety and security that are of comparable severity”.
I have a hard time imagining a Court ruling that “Other grave harms to public safety and security that are of comparable severity” could embrace something so different-in-kind than the listed items.
From the Fish and Game code:
This was read to include bees for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act which lists
(Emphases mine).
Well, “fish” is a statutorily defined term that clearly includes all invertebrates. What did you want the court to do, ignore the statutory text? Arguably, that outcome supports the notion that the courts are less likely to just ignore text limiting the kinds of harm that are cognizable, not more likely, as you seem to be arguing.
(4) uses three terms “public safety”, “public security” and comparable severity.
I would expect that severity means $500,000,000 worth of damage.
Public safety does not seem to be a clearly defined term but fairly broad.