Safari Club International v. Ryan Zinke, 878 F.3d 316

Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requires a positive "enhancement" determination under 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(B) before importing sport‑hunted African elephant trophies — i.e., a finding that the killing "will enhance the survival of the species."
The Service made a long‑standing positive enhancement finding for Zimbabwe (1997) but issued interim and final negative findings in April, July 2014 and March 2015, suspending imports because it concluded the record (population data, management and anti‑poaching efforts) was inadequate to support a positive finding.
Safari Club International and the NRA sued, claiming (inter alia) the Service applied an overly stringent standard, violated the ESA’s presumption of lawful importation (16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2)), failed to respond to the 1994 CITES change, and promulgated rules without APA notice‑and‑comment procedures (5 U.S.C. § 553).
The district court upheld the findings on the substantive APA/ESA claims and treated the enhancement findings as adjudications not subject to § 553. The Service conceded it did not follow notice‑and‑comment procedures for the findings.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Service on the substantive claims (interpretation of "enhance," application of § 9(c)(2), and relevance of the 1994 CITES change) but held the enhancement findings were legislative rules requiring notice and comment; it reversed on the § 553 point and remanded for rulemaking.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of "enhance" in Special Rule	"Enhance" requires only some benefit from hunting; any increase qualifies — Service should have found enhancement if hunting provides any net benefit.	Service read "enhance" holistically: requires net positive effect considering population viability and management; its reading is reasonable.	Held for Service: interpretation reasonable; may consider population status, management, and non‑hunting threats.
Effect of § 9(c)(2) presumption of lawful import	The statutory presumption that imports of Appendix II species are lawful (when conditions met) prohibits banning based on lack of affirmative evidence of enhancement.	Presumption is rebuttable; Special Rule imposes an affirmative precondition and lack of evidence rebuts the presumption.	Held for Service: presumption rebutted by absence of evidence and by Special Rule’s affirmative condition.
Impact of CITES 1994 removal of enhancement requirement	Removal from CITES meant Service must abandon enhancement requirement or initiate rulemaking to justify retention.	Service can retain stricter domestic protections; CITES permits stricter measures and the Special Rule has independent conservation purposes.	Held for Service: no obligation to change Special Rule; retention lawful and timely challenge is barred by limitations if facial.
Whether the 2014/2015 enhancement findings required APA notice‑and‑comment	Findings were adjudications not rules, so § 553 not required.	Findings were legislative rules of general applicability and prospective effect, so § 553 applies and the Service failed to comply.	Held for plaintiffs on procedure: findings are rules subject to § 553; failure to use notice‑and‑comment was prejudicial. Remand for rulemaking.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973) (distinguishing rulemaking from adjudication; generalized prospective agency action is rulemaking)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency statutory interpretation deference framework)
City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (deference to agency construction of statutory ambiguity regarding scope of authority)
Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (failure to follow notice‑and‑comment is not harmless where substantive uncertainty exists)
NLRB v. Wyman‑Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969) (agency cannot avoid § 553 by labeling rulemaking as adjudication)