Safari Club International v. Jewell
47 F. Supp. 3d 29
D.D.C.2014Background
- Safari Club International sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) challenging FWS’s April 4, 2014 press-release suspension of imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania for 2014.
- Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to restore the pre-suspension status quo pending merits resolution, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The district court considered the four Winter factors for a preliminary injunction but focused on irreparable harm.
- Plaintiff submitted declarations from members and outfitters describing canceled or altered hunts, trophies in storage, lost deposits/travel expenses, and alleged conservation and economic impacts.
- Defendants argued the suspensions did not prohibit hunting in-country, and any cancellations, economic losses, or conservation impacts resulted from hunters’ voluntary choices and were speculative.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction because plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm (recreational, conservation, or economic).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Safari Club is likely to suffer irreparable recreational harm absent an injunction | Suspension prevents import of trophies, depriving hunters of a core element of the hunt and causing irreparable recreational loss | Suspension does not bar hunting in-country; hunters can still participate and enjoy hunts; loss of import is diminution but not certain, great, or irreversible | No — the alleged recreational harm is speculative, self-inflicted in many cases, and not "certain and great" |
| Whether the suspensions cause irreparable harm to conservation interests | Reduced U.S. hunting and imports will decrease funding and anti-poaching activity, harming conservation | Hunters remain free to hunt and support conservation; any funding loss results from hunters’ choices and is speculative/indirect | No — conservation harms are speculative and not directly caused by the suspensions |
| Whether economic harms to hunters/outfitters are irreparable | Hunters/outfitters will lose deposits, travel expenses, and business revenue; some losses may be unrecoverable | Economic losses are ordinary and do not threaten business existence; many bookings may be rebooked; economic loss alone is not irreparable | No — asserted economic injuries are speculative or recoverable and do not rise to irreparable harm |
| Whether a preliminary injunction is warranted overall under Winter | Strong likelihood of success and public interest favor injunction because suspensions exceed agency authority | Even if merits are close, plaintiff must show irreparable harm; absence of such harm defeats injunction | No — failure to show irreparable harm is dispositive; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes the standard for preliminary injunctions requiring likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (failure to show irreparable harm is grounds to deny preliminary injunction)
- CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (discussion of the sliding-scale balancing approach among injunction factors)
- Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (irreparable harm must be certain and direct; harm cannot be self-inflicted)
- Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660 (1976) (litigant cannot claim injury resulting from its own voluntary actions)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (economic loss generally insufficient for irreparable harm)
- Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Shalala, 81 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) (economic loss must be serious in effect to qualify as irreparable)