Joseph W. Democko, Donald Jones and James Samis v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 125
| Iowa | 2013Background
- DNR revoked resident hunting licenses of Democko, Jones, and Samis for not meeting Iowa-483A residency criteria; decisions were reviewed consecutively by ALJs and the Natural Resource Commission, then appealed to district court which affirmed.
- Court considered whether 483A.24’s landowner privileges for resident landowners violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause when applied to nonresident landowners.
- Democko’s ties are strongest to North Carolina, with Iowa ties limited to ownership of a farm, teaching, and other engagements in Iowa; ALJ found he is not an Iowa resident for 483A purposes.
- Jones spends most time outside Iowa; his spouse resides in New Jersey; his Iowa interests are via LLCs and farming; ALJ found he is not an Iowa resident for 483A purposes.
- Samis claims Iowa residency through longtime ties and land, but spends majority of time outside Iowa (notably in Maryland); ALJ concluded he is not an Iowa resident for 483A purposes.
- Courts applied a multifactor, totality-of-circumstances framework to determine residency and upheld agency findings; the court ultimately upheld Alan interpretations and constitutionality of 483A.24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DNR’s residency findings are supported by substantial evidence | Democko et al. contend the ALJs misapplied evidence. | DNR argues record shows Democko, Jones, Samis spend majority time outside Iowa with strong non-Iowa ties. | Substantial evidence supports the agency findings. |
| Whether Iowa's 483A.24 landowner privilege violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause | Landowners claim nonresident discrimination violates the clause. | State may distinguish residents from nonresidents on hunting; landowner rights are not fundamental. | No violation; framework from Baldwin/Hoeven Taulman applies, landownership does not confer a fundamental hunting right. |
| Whether the alleged 90-day residency interpretation was erroneous | Plaintiffs assert a rigid ninety-day physical-presence rule was applied. | Agency did not require continuous physical presence; 90-day timeframe evaluated as residency intent, not presence. | No legal error; no continuous-physicality requirement applied. |
| Whether the agency had interpretive authority to define residency terms | Legislature did not clearly vest DNR with interpretive authority. | DNR interpretations aligned with statutory definitions and were entitled to deference where vested. | Legislature did not clearly vest interpretive authority; review for correction of errors at law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 (U.S. (1978)) (nonresidents' hunting not a fundamental right under Privileges and Immunities Clause)
- Hoeven v. Hoeven, 456 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2006) (recognizes state regulation of hunting as non-fundamental; discrimination permissible with justification)
- Borden v. Selden, 259 Iowa 808 (Iowa 1966) (tax-credit case; not about fundamental hunting rights; distinguishes justifications for unequal treatment)
- Ward v. State, 170 Iowa 185 (Iowa 1915) (property-right extension arguments limited; hunting rights on land not fundamental given statutory scheme)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 789 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2010) (statutory definitions can foreclose agency interpretive authority in context of residency terms)
- United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cnty. & Vicinity v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (U.S. (1984)) (Supreme Court on Privileges and Immunities framework; fundamental vs nonfundamental privileges)
- NextEra Energy Res. LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012) (statutory interpretation framework for agency decisions)