174 F. Supp. 3d 20
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Friends of Animals and Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force challenge FWS permits allowing two U.S. hunters to import black rhinoceros trophies taken in Namibia, asserting violations of the APA, ESA, and NEPA.
- Namibia issues up to five black rhino hunting licenses per year under CITES/its national program; the challenged hunts occurred in Mangetti National Park and were licensed by Namibia’s Ministry.
- Dallas Safari Club auctioned a hunt won by Knowlton; $350,000 was to be transferred to Namibia’s Game Products Trust Fund only if FWS issued an import permit; Conservation Force helped obtain the permits.
- FWS published notice of permit applications and received comments in opposition; after the funds were transferred, FWS issued the two import permits in April 2015 and the hunt occurred in May 2015.
- Plaintiffs sued to set aside the permits; intervenors (Namibia, Dallas Safari Club, Conservation Force) defended. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; Court considered extra-pleading materials on jurisdiction.
- Court concluded plaintiffs lack Article III standing (insufficient causation and redressability) and Count III (a programmatic/policy challenge) fails for not identifying a final, reviewable agency action; dismissal granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — Injury in fact | Members use/visit Namibia and will have decreased recreational/aesthetic enjoyment if imports encourage more killing | Plaintiffs’ asserted fear is generalized; only one declarant shows limited concrete plans to view rhinos | Injury-in-fact borderline for one member but court need not rest on it because other prongs fail |
| Causation | FWS import permits spur U.S. hunters to go to Namibia; thus issuance is a cause of future killing and reduced viewing opportunities | Hunting authorization and kills are controlled by Namibia (an independent third party); permits do not cause hunts | Causation lacking: chain too attenuated and dependent on independent actors (Namibia, hunters) |
| Redressability | Vacating/ enjoining import permits would discourage U.S. hunters, reduce dual market, and lessen killing/poaching | Even if U.S. imports were barred, Namibia would remain free to authorize hunts; injunctive relief would not likely prevent the harm | Redressability fails: favorable relief would not likely redress plaintiffs’ alleged injury |
| Count III — Programmatic APA challenge / Ripeness | FWS has a policy/repeated practice of granting import permits in violation of ESA/APA; challenge to the policy is reviewable | The claim attacks an ongoing permitting program, not a discrete final agency action; many actions are case-by-case and unripe | Dismissed: Count III does not identify a final, reviewable agency action and is unripe for programmatic attack |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for environmental plaintiffs)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (aesthetic/recreational injury can confer standing)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (definition of final agency action under the APA)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (programmatic APA challenges are generally not reviewable; ripeness)
- Fund for Animals v. Norton, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1 (district court ruling that plaintiff lacked standing where foreign government controlled hunting)
- Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. decision on intervention and standing of a foreign government)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Twombly plausibility standard)