550 S.W.3d 463
Mo.2018Background
- Missouri Conservation Commission (via Dept. of Conservation) adopted stricter 2015 regulations aimed at captive cervid operations to control chronic wasting disease (CWD): bans on importation, stronger fencing, and enhanced recordkeeping/inspections.
- Plaintiffs (Hill, Broadway, Grace and related ranch entities) operate captive cervid breeding and hunting preserves and require Department permits to run those operations; they challenged the 2015 amendments seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- CWD is a fatal, transmissible disease of cervids (deer/elk); it has long incubation, no live-animal test, and has been detected in Missouri since 2010 near captive facilities.
- The trial court enjoined enforcement, holding (1) captive cervids are not "game" or "wildlife resources of the state" under Mo. Const. art. IV, § 40(a), so the Commission lacked authority, and (2) the regulations infringed plaintiffs’ constitutional "right to farm" (art. I, § 35).
- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed: it held captive cervids are "game" and "wildlife" under art. IV, § 40(a) and that plaintiffs are not protected by the 2014 constitutional right-to-farm amendment with respect to these long-regulated activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether captive cervids are "game" or "wildlife" under Mo. Const. art. IV, § 40(a) | Hill et al.: "wildlife" and "game" apply only to individual animals that remain wild/untamed; domesticated/captive cervids are excluded | Commission: terms cover species wild by nature whether individuals are captive or free; Commission historically regulated captive cervids | Court: Held for Commission — "wildlife" means species wild by nature; "game" means such species pursued for sport/food; captive cervids fall within both. |
| Whether privately owned/captive cervids are "resources of the state" under art. IV, § 40(a) | Hill et al.: "resources of the state" implies state ownership or only wild/free animals; privately owned animals fall outside | Commission: phrase refers to resources within state boundaries, regardless of private ownership; historical practice regulates wildlife within state | Court: Held for Commission — phrase covers wildlife located in state even if privately owned. |
| Whether art. I, § 35 (right to farm) bars regulation of captive cervid operations | Hill et al.: their breeding/hunting preserves are "farming/ranching practices" protected by amendment, so regulations are invalid | Commission: § 35 does not clearly exempt long-regulated captive cervid operations; longstanding regulatory scheme indicates no intended displacement | Court: Held for Commission — plaintiffs did not show their activities are protected farming practices; § 35 does not nullify Commission authority. |
| Scope of injunction (statewide vs. parties) | Plaintiffs sought broad relief preventing enforcement against them and potentially others | Commission argued injunction should be limited if granted | Court: Did not reach nationwide/sweep issue because it resolved first two points for Commission; reversed trial court and entered judgment for Commission. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard of review for court-tried civil cases)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (appellate review standard for trial-court findings)
- Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) (de novo review for questions of law)
- State v. Weber, 102 S.W. 955 (Mo. 1907) (held deer raised in captivity are "game")
- Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979) (explaining state "ownership" of wildlife is a regulatory fiction)
- State v. Shanklin, 534 S.W.3d 240 (Mo. banc 2017) (interpreting scope of art. I, § 35 right-to-farm in context of preexisting regulation)