Friends of Animals v. Sally Jewell
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10094
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- In 2005 FWS listed three antelope species (scimitar-horned oryx, addax, dama gazelle) as endangered and simultaneously issued a blanket Captive‑Bred Exemption allowing certain domestic captive‑breeding activities that would otherwise be prohibited under ESA §9.
- In 2009 the D.D.C. court (Antelope I) held the Captive‑Bred Exemption violated ESA §10(c)’s requirement that permits/exemptions be published and considered on a case‑by‑case basis; FWS revoked the exemption in 2012.
- Congress enacted Section 127 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, directing the Secretary to reissue the 2005 final rule “without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation,” and FWS reinstated the exemption in March 2014.
- Friends of Animals sued, arguing (1) the Reinstatement Rule violates ESA §10(c) and the APA, and (2) Section 127 is an unconstitutional intrusion on Article III judicial power (separation of powers). District Court upheld the Reinstatement Rule and found Friends of Animals lacked standing to press the constitutional claim.
- The D.C. Circuit held Friends of Animals has informational standing under Akins/Lujan to challenge the statutory and constitutional claims, but rejected Friends of Animals’ arguments on the merits: Congress validly amended the law via Section 127 and the Reinstatement Rule complied with that directive and the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Informational standing under ESA §10(c) | Friends of Animals: §10(c) creates a public‑disclosure right; reinstatement denies information and thus causes injury | Gov/Safari Club: §10(c) doesn't support standing here (distinguishing Feld) | Held: Friends of Animals has informational standing under Akins and Lujan because §10(c) creates a disclosure right and denial is a concrete injury |
| Constitutionality under separation of powers (Plaut/Klein) | Friends of Animals: Section 127 unlawfully reverses Antelope I and directs outcomes in pending cases, violating Plaut/Klein | Gov: Section 127 prospectively amends the applicable law; Congress can change law and remove need for permits; not retroactive reversal of final judgments | Held: Section 127 is constitutional — it amends the law prospectively and does not impermissibly direct judicial outcomes under Klein or Plaut |
| APA challenge: Reinstatement Rule violates ESA §10(c) | Friends of Animals: Reinstatement circumvents §10(c)’s case‑by‑case notice and public participation requirements, so rule is arbitrary/illegal | Gov: Section 127 removed the applicability of §10(c) to this rule; FWS complied with the congressional directive | Held: Reinstatement Rule valid; because Congress directed reissuance “without regard to any other provision,” §10(c) does not bar the rule and APA challenge fails |
| Effect on pending related cases (Antelope II/III) | Friends of Animals: Section 127 seeks to moot or direct outcomes in pending cases, violating judicial power | Gov: Congress changed the substantive law prospectively, which it may do; it has not retroactively undone final judgments | Held: No unconstitutional interference; Congress amended applicable law and did not impermissibly retroactively reverse final judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (information‑based standing doctrine)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing framework)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (limits on Congress retroactively overturning final judgments)
- United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (limits on Congress directing judicial decisions in pending cases)
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 (Klein limited where Congress amends applicable law)
- Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (separation‑of‑powers principles)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (judicial duty to say what the law is)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (standing is essential part of Article III)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (denial of statutorily required information can confer standing)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. on informational standing under Akins)
- Am. Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13 (distinguishing where statutory disclosure right exists)
- Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173 (FWS violated §10(c) by withholding permit information)
- Nat’l Coal. to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092 (statute phrased "notwithstanding any other provision" can amend applicable law)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672 F.3d 1170 (upholding congressional direction to an agency to issue rule despite other statutes)
- BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 162 F.3d 678 (distinguishing prospective legislative revision of judicial effects)
- Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 503 U.S. 429 (clarifying limits on Klein)