21 May 2026
Hello Everyone,
I want to post the following separately. Please read it and understand the shocking implications. I may be wrong, but I believe the individual bringing the lawsuit is the owner of the nests formerly known as Superbeaks. (I will correct this if I am wrong.
This is a not being reported much that’s happening in Florida. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but I haven’t.
A high-profile lawsuit in Florida involving a “tech entrepreneur” has sparked national alarm because its legal argument could dismantle a massive portion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The lawsuit centers on Michael Colosi, a 32-year-old tech founder who recently relocated from New Jersey to Punta Gorda, Florida.
The Conflict: A Tech Entrepreneur vs. A Tiny Bird
In 2024, Colosi purchased a five-acre plot of land in Charlotte County to build a home. However, the property sits directly within the designated habitat of the Florida scrub jay. The scrub jay is a threatened species, and the only bird found uniquely (endemic) to the state of Florida.
Under local conservation plans designed to comply with the ESA, anyone building on this habitat must pay a mitigation fee—amounting to roughly $118,000 to $140,000 in Colosi’s case—which is used to buy and protect alternative lands for the birds. Rather than paying the fee, Colosi sued Charlotte County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Loophole Threatening the Entire ESA
Colosi is being represented pro bono by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a conservative property-rights group. The PLF is using a highly controversial legal argument that extends far beyond a single house.
The Argument: They claim that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to protect species that exist entirely within the borders of a single state. They argue federal law, by definition, must regulate interstate matters.
The “Too Endangered” Paradox: Critics note that this argument creates a bizarre legal paradox: if a species becomes so endangered that its entire population is reduced to just one state, it would lose all federal protections.
If the federal courts rule in Colosi’s favor, the precedent would not just affect the Florida scrub jay. It could instantly strip federal ESA protections from more than 1,200 species across the United States that are endemic to a single state—including iconic animals like the Florida panther, the California condor, and hundreds of localized Hawaiian plants and animals.
Because the stakes are so high, a coalition of environmental organizations—including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Earthjustice legal team—have formally intervened in the lawsuit to defend the Endangered Species Act against the challenge.
The lawsuit (Colosi v. Charlotte County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.) is actively moving forward in the federal court system after the government’s attempt to dismiss it was rejected.
The Government’s Dismissal Fails: Both Charlotte County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) filed motions to dismiss, claiming that tech entrepreneur Michael Colosi lacked standing and that his injury wasn’t concrete. The federal court denied the motions to dismiss, ruling that Colosi faces clear “concrete, particularized harms” by being forced to choose between a six-figure fee or an extensive federal permitting process.
The Case Moves to Merits: Because the court refused to throw out the lawsuit, the defendants were required to formally respond. The case is now moving toward the summary judgment and evidentiary phases.
Environmental Intervenors: A coalition of environmental groups, legally represented by Earthjustice, successfully intervened. They are now official parties to the case to actively defend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) from being dismantled.
Ultimate Trajectory: Legal experts from both sides expect this case to eventually be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially rise to the U.S. Supreme Court, given the Pacific Legal Foundation’s broader goal of redefining federal Commerce Clause power.
Major Single-State Species at Risk
The Pacific Legal Foundation’s core argument is that the federal government cannot use the Commerce Clause to protect species that live entirely within one state’s borders. If Colosi wins, federal ESA protections could instantly be stripped from roughly 75% of all listed species that are endemic to a single state
Some of the most prominent single-state species that would lose federal protection include:
| Region | Species at Risk | Current Status |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | Florida Panther | Endangered |
| Florida Scrub Jay (the bird in the lawsuit) | Threatened | |
| Florida Grasshopper Sparrow | Endangered | |
| California | California Condor | Endangered |
| Island Fox (Channel Islands) | Threatened / Recovered | |
| Delta Smelt | Endangered | |
| Hawaii | Hawaiian Monk Seal | Endangered |
| Nene (Hawaiian Goose) | Threatened | |
| Hundreds of localized Hawaiian plants & forest birds | Various | |
| Other States | Golden-Cheeked Warbler (Texas) | Endangered |
| Grizzly Bear (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population)* | Threatened | |
| Red Cockaded Woodpecker (Isolated state-specific clusters)~M | ||
Thank you, MP, for sending this to me. I did not know and I find this and other changes to parks and migratory bird laws astonishingly archaic. We should be supporting nature not killing it.
Thank you to OpenVerse for the image of the Scrub Jay.