Citizens Against Range Expansion v. Idaho Fish & Game Department
289 P.3d 32
Idaho2012Background
- Farragut Shooting Range operated by IDFG sits on ~160 acres near a residential area; public use increased from 176 shooters in 2002 to at least 509 in 2005.
- CARE sued IDFG in 2005 seeking nuisance relief and an injunction, culminating in a 2007 memorandum decision lifting the injunction conditionally with 500-shooter and 501-shooter components.
- The 500-shooter component required installation of a baffle over every firing position so no shooter could fire above the berm; the 501-shooter component required safety, noise, and containment measures before opening to more than 500 shooters per year.
- Idaho Legislature enacted HB 604 and the Idaho Outdoor Sport Shooting Range Act in 2008, creating a statewide noise standard of Leq(h) 64 dBA for state-owned ranges.
- IDFG sought partial lifting of the injunction after completing a 100-yard range with baffles; CARE moved for summary judgment arguing the Act violated art. III, § 19 and art. V, § 13.
- District court held the Act unconstitutional as a special law and deprivation of judicial power, denying IDFG’s relief motion on the 501-shooter component; district court later denied relief on the 500-shooter component.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by denying lift for the 500-shooter component? | IDFG complied with injunction terms. | CARE’s view that ricochets extend scope is correct. | Yes; injunction lifted for 500 shooters. |
| Is the Idaho Outdoor Sport Shooting Range Act a constitutional general law or a special law? | Act, with HB 604, applies to all state ranges; general law. | Act targets Farragut and is a special law. | General law; not a special law. |
| Does the Act deprive the judiciary of power under art. V, § 13? | Act legislates the outcome of the Farragut case. | Act is a police-power health measure; not a court-depriving manipulation. | Not a deprivation of judicial power. |
| Has IDFG complied with the 501-shooter component of the injunction? | Need evidence on safety and noise standards; not yet addressed by the Act. | Act’s noise standards facilitate compliance; future safety addressed on remand. | Remand for evaluation of 501-shooter compliance. |
| Is CARE entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal? | Prevailing party entitlement supports fees. | IDFG prevailed; CARE not entitled. | CARE not entitled to attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Yonkers Sch. Dist., 561 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion in interpreting own injunction order)
- Cave v. Singletary, 84 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1996) (deference to district court interpretation of orders)
- Alabama Nursing Home Ass’n v. Harris, 617 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1980) (interpretation of injunctions and scope of 65(d))
- Petrello v. White, 533 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (four corners of order must describe prohibited acts)
- Moon v. North Idaho Farmers Ass'n, 140 Idaho 536 (2004) (analyzing combined effect of statute within statutory scheme)
- ID v. ISEEO IV, 140 Idaho 586 (2004) (legislative action and separation of powers; ISEEO IV context)
- Van Orden v. State, 102 Idaho 663 (1981) (police power and health, safety, welfare authority)
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) (control of noise within police power)