Friends Animals v. Zinke, 373 F. Supp. 3d 70

Background

Friends of Animals (FoA) and Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTF) sued after FWS issued a positive 2017 Zimbabwe elephant "enhancement" finding allowing import of sport-hunted trophies; Safari Club International and NRA intervened as defendants.
Earlier: 1997 species-specific rule allowed country-wide enhancement findings; FWS made positive Zimbabwe findings in 1997; interim suspension in 2014 and a 2015 final suspension followed.
D.C. Circuit (Safari Club II) held the 2014/2015 country-wide findings were legislative rules requiring notice-and-comment and remanded. FWS then issued a 2017 positive finding, and later (March 2018 Memo) withdrew the 2014, 2015, and 2017 findings and announced it would make enhancement/non-detriment determinations case-by-case via permit adjudications.
Plaintiffs amended to challenge (1) the 2017 finding on APA/ESA grounds, (2) FWS’s withdrawal of prior country-wide findings without notice-and-comment, (3) alleged violation of a 1997 publication requirement, and (4) the switch to case-by-case determinations as beyond statutory authority.
The government and intervenors moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted dismissal in full.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Are challenges to the 2017 country‑wide enhancement finding justiciable?	2017 finding violated APA/ESA (no notice-and-comment; arbitrary and capricious); seek vacatur and injunction.	FWS withdrew the 2017 finding by the March Memo, so no live controversy; moot.	Dismissed as moot; withdrawal moots claims and no exception applies.
2. Can plaintiffs challenge rescission of prior findings in the March Memo (broadly)?	Rescission required notice-and-comment; March Memo unlawfully withdrew many country‑wide findings.	Plaintiffs lack standing for rescission of positive findings and non‑Zimbabwe/non‑elephant findings; prior litigation bars relitigation of 2014/2015 withdrawal.	Dismissed: lack of standing for many rescissions; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of 2014/2015 issue.
3. Does the 1997 Proposed Rule or prior order create a perpetual Federal Register publication requirement for enhancement findings?	The 1997 Proposed Rule and Court's earlier holding require notice/publication for future enhancement changes.	The 1997 language applied to findings then "on file" and did not create an eternal publication mandate.	Dismissed for failure to state a claim; Plaintiffs misread the 1997 text and prior opinion.
4. Is FWS’s adoption of case‑by‑case adjudication for enhancement/non‑detriment findings outside statutory authority and violative of APA?	ESA §1533(d) requires regulations for threatened species; enhancement findings must be made by regulation, not individual adjudication closed to public comment.	The ESA requires the Secretary to adopt regulations setting protections; FWS has done so (general regs and a species‑specific rule). How FWS implements those regs (including case‑by‑case permit decisions) is within agency authority.	Dismissed for failure to state a claim; statutory scheme permits the agency’s approach; plaintiffs’ statutory reading is flawed.

Key Cases Cited

Safari Club Int'l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (held country‑wide enhancement findings were legislative rules requiring notice-and-comment)
Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell, 213 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2016) (district court decision addressing effective date of 2014 suspension)
Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (describes the ESA as comprehensive conservation legislation)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and mootness principles)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (courts should not decide past actions without continuing effect)
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 680 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (agency corrective action can moot litigation)