New Mexico Department of Game & Fish v. United States Department of the Interior
854 F.3d 1236
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reintroduced Mexican gray wolves under a Section 10(j) experimental-population rule; FWS promulgated a Revised 10(j) Rule in 2015 increasing population goals and release zones in AZ/NM.
- New Mexico regulations require permits to import or release non‑domesticated animals; the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (the Department) denied FWS permit applications and the state Game Commission upheld the denials.
- FWS informed the Department it would proceed without state permits, relying on federal authority and 43 C.F.R. § 24.4(i)(5)(i), and implemented a 2016 Release Plan, cross‑fostering two wolf pups on federal land in New Mexico without state permits.
- The Department sued and obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining FWS and Interior officials from importing or releasing Mexican wolves into New Mexico without state permits and from violating prior state permits for offspring.
- Federal Appellants and conservation intervenors appealed the injunction; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction, holding the Department failed to show it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, so the court did not reach the other preliminary‑injunction factors or merits defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (New Mexico) | Defendant's Argument (Federal Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Department demonstrated irreparable harm to its wildlife‑management efforts from unpermitted wolf releases | Unpermitted releases would disrupt predator‑prey management, undermine state population objectives, and cannot be remedied by money damages | Department produced no specific evidence tying planned releases to imminent, serious, irreparable harm; FWS materials and expert declaration showed minimal likely impact on ungulates | Department failed to show a significant risk of irreparable harm; injunction vacated |
| Whether Department showed irreparable harm to state sovereignty from federal releases without permits | Releases interfere with New Mexico’s core functions to set and enforce wildlife laws and pressure the State to change laws | Federal authority under ESA and Interior regulation permits proceeding where state permit compliance would prevent federal statutory responsibilities; no demonstrated interference with state lawmaking or enforcement | Court declined to accept sovereignty argument because Department offered no factual/legal basis; not sufficient for irreparable injury |
| Applicable preliminary‑injunction standard (including whether to relax likelihood‑of‑success prong) | Department and amici suggested a relaxed standard when other factors favor movant | Appellants argued standard must follow Winter; Tenth Circuit has rejected the relaxed test post‑Winter | Court applied Winter; refused modified/relaxed test and required showing of irreparable harm first |
| Whether district court erred by not deferring to Interior’s interpretation of its regulation or by other legal errors (preemption/sovereign immunity) | Department argued state law applies and sovereignty/state permitting valid | Federal Appellants argued deference to Interior, preemption, intergovernmental immunity, and lack of state entitlement to block federal ESA actions | Court did not decide those legal issues because it reversed based on lack of irreparable harm; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction requires showing likelihood of irreparable harm)
- Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) (preliminary injunction factors and standard of review)
- Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env’t v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016) (rejecting relaxed preliminary‑injunction test after Winter)
- Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2004) (irreparable harm as threshold for preliminary injunction)
- Wyo. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000) (background on Section 10(j) experimental populations and federal management discretion)