Safari Club International v. Becerra
702 F. App'x 607
9th Cir.2017Background
- Safari Club International sued challenging California’s ban on importing, possessing, and transporting mountain lions (Cal. Fish & Game Code § 4800 et seq.).
- Claimed the ban (the Mountain Lion Prohibition) violated the dormant Commerce Clause and sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations by state actors.
- District court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim; Safari Club appealed.
- Safari Club alleged the law discouraged Californians from hunting out-of-state and prevented bringing hunted mountain lion remains into California; relied on survey responses from its membership to quantify the burden.
- The State defended on the ground the statute is non-discriminatory, applies equally to in- and out-of-state animals and persons, and does not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed under the two-step dormant Commerce Clause framework and considered whether a substantial burden existed before applying the Pike balancing test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Prohibition discriminates against interstate commerce | The law effectively burdens out-of-state commerce by blocking importation/possession of out-of-state mountain lions | Law applies equally to in- and out-of-state animals and residents, so it is non-discriminatory | Not discriminatory; court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether the Prohibition substantially burdens interstate commerce | Survey of Safari Club members shows dozens/hundreds would import or hunt outside California, producing economic impact | Club’s survey and extrapolations are unrepresentative and speculative, insufficient to show substantial burden | No substantial burden pleaded; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred by not conducting a full Pike balancing | Club argued Pike balancing required to weigh benefits vs. burdens | Court need not reach Pike because no substantial burden shown and no discrimination alleged | Pike analysis unnecessary; dismissal proper |
| Whether § 1983 claim can proceed based on alleged dormant Commerce Clause violation | § 1983 claim depends on a valid constitutional violation (dormant Commerce Clause) | Without a viable Commerce Clause claim, § 1983 claim fails | § 1983 claim dismissed because underlying Commerce Clause claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Cty. of Alameda, 768 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-step framework for dormant Commerce Clause review)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1970) (balancing test: burden on interstate commerce must not be clearly excessive relative to local benefits)
- Pac. Nw. Venison Producers v. Smitch, 20 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 1994) (discrimination analysis under dormant Commerce Clause)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Optometrists & Opticians v. Harris, 682 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2012) (standards for showing substantial burden on interstate commerce)
- Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting speculative economic-impact extrapolations)
- Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining when full Pike analysis is required)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1983 requires violation of federal right by person acting under color of state law)