context: As an initial matter, the panel correctly determined, unlike other courts, that the "regulated activity" under the ESA is Cave Species takes, not the appellants' planned commercial development of the land.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 311 F.3d 602, 602
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that the regulated activity at issue was asbestos removal, rather than the plaintiffs commercial enterprise
citation_a.sentence: GDF Realty, 326 F.3d at 633-34 (recognizing that “looking beyond the regulated activity ... would ‘effectually obliterate’ the limiting purpose of the Commerce Clause”) (citing Jones and Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. at 37, 57 S.Ct. 615); Ho, 311 F.3d at 602 (recognizing that the regulated activity at issue was asbestos removal, rather than the plaintiffs commercial enterprise); but see Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062 (D.C.Cir.2003) (finding that the reg ulated activity was not the ESA take but rather the “construction of a commercial housing development”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that the reg ulated activity was not the ESA take but rather the "construction of a commercial housing development"
citation_b.sentence: GDF Realty, 326 F.3d at 633-34 (recognizing that “looking beyond the regulated activity ... would ‘effectually obliterate’ the limiting purpose of the Commerce Clause”) (citing Jones and Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. at 37, 57 S.Ct. 615); Ho, 311 F.3d at 602 (recognizing that the regulated activity at issue was asbestos removal, rather than the plaintiffs commercial enterprise); but see Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062 (D.C.Cir.2003) (finding that the reg ulated activity was not the ESA take but rather the “construction of a commercial housing development”).