The designation of private property as necessary habitat for some endangered species or other must actually be supported by evidence and must actually serve the intended purpose.
"Every now and then we have to wonder about the way that government operates. Some of us (at least) like to believe that the judiciary serves a function and that decisions of courts of precedent—particularly those at the top of the judicial pyramid—are entitled to due respect. Take, for example the idea that a phony designation of private property as necessary habitat for some endangered species or other must actually be supported by evidence and must actually serve the intended purpose."
Read the article here (subscription required).