Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier, 303 P.3d 794

Background

Yellowstone-origin bison were quarantined and tested brucellosis-free by Montana DFWP as part of a relocation program; DFWP planned transfers to Ft. Peck (March 2012) and later Ft. Belknap reservations.
DFWP entered an MOU with Ft. Peck Tribes providing containment, fencing, testing, return-of-escapes, and insurance obligations; similar MOU was planned with Ft. Belknap requiring upgraded fencing before transfer.
Plaintiffs (CBU) sued seeking to enjoin further transfers unless DFWP complied with Montana’s wild buffalo/bison statute (§ 87-1-216, MCA) and secured landowner consent and a management plan; court granted a preliminary injunction blocking transfers and MOUs.
The State and intervenors appealed the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reviews injunctions for abuse of discretion and legal conclusions de novo.
The District Court had concluded § 87-1-216 applied to transfers to tribal lands and that the balance of equities favored CBU; the Supreme Court considered whether the statute’s phrase “public or private land in Montana” includes tribal reservation land.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held § 87-1-216 does not extend to tribal lands (and thus did not apply to these transfers), found the District Court misweighed equities by failing to consider tribal and state interests, and vacated the preliminary injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 87-1-216’s requirement (landowner consent, management plan, hearings) applies to transfers to tribal reservation land	§ 87-1-216’s phrase “public or private land in Montana” includes tribal lands; statute governs transfers to Ft. Peck and Ft. Belknap	The statute does not mention tribal lands and other statutes expressly address tribal transfers; § 87-1-216 was not intended to cover reservation land	Held: § 87-1-216 does not apply to tribal lands; Legislature has elsewhere expressly provided for tribal transfers, so statute does not cover these transfers
Whether the quarantined bison are “wild buffalo or bison” under definitions (i.e., statute applicability because animals are in captivity)	Implied that statute applies regardless of captivity	Quarantined animals have been reduced to captivity and thus arguably fall outside the definition of “wild buffalo or bison”	Court noted captivity issue but declined to decide it (not raised below); focused disposition on tribal-land interpretation
Whether the District Court properly granted a preliminary injunction (balancing of equities, irreparable harm)	Injunction necessary because statutory requirements were violated and landowners face risk/damage	DFWP’s relocation plan, tribal interests, state policy to allow disease-free transfers, and lack of evidence of latent disease weigh against injunction	Held: District Court abused discretion by misweighing equities and failing to consider state and tribal interests; injunction vacated
Whether delegation/enforceability concerns (MOU lacking choice-of-law/forum) justify injunction under § 27-19-201(3), MCA	The MOU delegates DFWP duties; without choice-of-law/forum, remedies could be ineffectual, justifying injunction	Because § 87-1-216 does not apply, the delegation concern is misplaced; applicable statute (§ 81-2-120) permits tribal transfers with disease controls	Held: District Court relied on erroneous statutory premise; delegation/forum concern does not sustain injunction once § 87-1-216 is inapplicable

Key Cases Cited

State v. BNSF Ry. Co., 360 Mont. 361, 254 P.3d 561 (Mont. 2011) (standard for reviewing preliminary injunctions)
Reier Broad. Co. v. Kramer, 316 Mont. 301, 72 P.3d 944 (Mont. 2003) (questions of law in injunctions reviewed for correctness)
Sweet Grass Farms v. Board of County Comm’rs, 300 Mont. 66, 2 P.3d 825 (Mont. 2000) (preliminary injunction preserves status quo and requires prima facie case of irreparable injury)
Troglia v. Bartoletti, 152 Mont. 365, 451 P.2d 106 (Mont. 1969) (extraordinary nature of preliminary injunctions)
Shammel v. Canyon Resources, 319 Mont. 132, 82 P.3d 912 (Mont. 2003) (factors for injunction where monetary damages are inadequate)
Montanans for Justice v. State, 334 Mont. 237, 146 P.3d 759 (Mont. 2006) (legislative history can resolve statutory ambiguity)
Big Spring v. Conway, 360 Mont. 370, 255 P.3d 121 (Mont. 2011) (special status and jurisdictional treatment of Indian Country)
Pinnow v. Mont. State Fund, 340 Mont. 217, 172 P.3d 1273 (Mont. 2007) (court generally will not decide issues not raised by parties)