People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Miami Seaquarium, 879 F.3d 1142

Lolita is a captive Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) held at Miami Seaquarium since 1970; she is an ESA-listed endangered individual since 2015 after NMFS removed the captive exclusion.
PETA sued Seaquarium under ESA § 9(a)(1)(B), alleging Seaquarium ‘‘takes’’ Lolita by ‘‘harm[ing]’’ or ‘‘harass[ing]’’ her due to tank size, companionship (shares tank with Pacific white-sided dolphins), sun/UV exposure, and related conditions, citing 13 specific injuries/harms.
The district court granted summary judgment for Seaquarium, adopting a standard that a licensed exhibitor ‘‘takes’’ a captive animal only when its conduct gravely threatens the animal’s survival; PETA appealed, arguing the standard was too strict and that material facts showed a grave threat.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Seaquarium but rejected the notion that ‘‘harm’’/‘‘harass[ment]’’ is limited only to deadly conduct; instead it held ESA ‘‘harm’’/‘‘harass[ment]’’ requires a threat of serious harm, which PETA’s evidence did not show as a matter of law.
The court interpreted statutory text, noscitur a sociis, agency definitions (NMFS and FWS regulations), and related statutes (Animal Welfare Act and APHIS regulations) to conclude ESA protections should target conduct posing a serious risk to the endangered animal, without nullifying the AWA regulatory scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of "harm"/"harass" in ESA §9 (definition of "take")	"Harm" and "harass" cover a broad range of injuries and annoyances from captivity conditions (PETA)	Limit "harm"/"harass" to conduct posing serious threat; de minimis annoyances not actionable (Seaquarium)	"Harm"/"harass" actionable only where conduct poses a threat of serious harm (court)
Application to captive animals vs. wild animals	ESA should provide robust protection for captive endangered animals; dictionary meaning suffices (PETA)	Reading must account for regulatory scheme (AWA/APHIS) and not supplant agency standards (Seaquarium)	Court applies serious-harm standard to captive animals to preserve AWA/APHIS roles while providing ESA backstop
Use of noscitur a sociis to construe "harm"/"harass"	Canon inapplicable here; relying on Sweet Home supports broader reading (PETA)	Canon appropriate: surrounding terms in list (kill, wound, capture, etc.) show serious-threat meaning (Seaquarium)	Noscitur a sociis properly informs scope; "harm"/"harass" read in context with other listed, serious conduct
Adequacy of PETA's evidence on summary judgment	PETA: 13 asserted injuries create genuine dispute that captivity poses serious threat to Lolita	Seaquarium: Evidence insufficient to show threat of serious harm as required	Court: Even construing facts for PETA, the record does not show conditions pose threat of serious harm; summary judgment for Seaquarium affirmed

Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
Jones v. Dillard’s, 331 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment standards)
Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (statutory-construction starting with text)
United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (plain-meaning analysis guidance)
S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 547 U.S. 370 (2006) (use of noscitur a sociis; "a word is known by the company it keeps")
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) (contextual statutory interpretation)
Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481 (2006) (statutory interpretation constraints)
Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010) (canons of construction applied)
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Greater Or., 515 U.S. 687 (1995) (interpretation of "harm" in regulatory context)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations)
Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (ESA's purpose to prevent extinction and be broadly protective)