Safari Club International v. Salazar
852 F. Supp. 2d 102
D.D.C.2012Background
- Consolidated actions SCI v. Salazar and Exotic Wildlife Association v. Interior challenge the FWS listing and the Final Rule concerning U.S. captive populations of three African antelope species.
- Three Antelope species are scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle; captive U.S. populations exist on ranches and private facilities.
- In 2005 FWS listed these captive populations as endangered and created a Captive-bred Exemption allowing certain activities; a court later remanded that exemption as inconsistent with ESA §10(c).
- In 2011–2012 FWS issued a Final Rule removing the Captive-bred Exemption, making permits or exemptions required for otherwise prohibited activities, effective April 4, 2012.
- The actions allege violations of ESA and APA and seek preliminary injunctions to halt the endangered-status enforcement or the Final Rule pending merits.
- The court applied a four-factor preliminary-injunction standard and denied both motions, finding no likelihood of success on the merits and no irreparable harm sufficient to warrant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on SCI’s challenge to 2005 listing | SCI argues the listing was arbitrary and inconsistent with ESA and decision-making for similar species. | Defendants contend listing was the product of years of study and consistent with ESA policy and practice. | SCI unlikely to succeed on the merits; listing not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Likelihood of success on EWA’s challenge to the Final Rule | EWA argues the Final Rule is arbitrary, fails to consider alternatives and delisting, and contravenes the ESA and NEPA. | Defendants argue the Rule is rational, responds to comments, and consistent with Kennedy v. Friends of Animals; delisting not required. | EWA unlikely to succeed on the merits; Final Rule not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Irreparable harm | Harm to conservation and market for captive animals is irreparable and ongoing. | Harm alleged is largely economic and mitigated by permits; cannot show irreparable injury to species or businesses. | No irreparable harm established sufficient for a preliminary injunction. |
| Balance of equities | Staying the Final Rule would preserve private conservation efforts and market stability. | Enforcing ESA protections aligns with Congress’s purposes and protects endangered species. | Equities weigh in favor of the Federal Defendants; balance does not favor injunction. |
| Public interest | Staying protections would serve public interest by supporting private conservation and hunting ranches. | Public interest favors enforcing the ESA to conserve endangered species and uphold legal process. | Public interest does not favor grant of preliminary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard and irreparable harm considerations)
- Friends of Animals v. Salazar, 626 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2009) (court remand of Captive-bred Exemption and need for public notice per ESA)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (economic harm alone does not establish irreparable injury)
- National Mining Ass'n v. Jackson, 768 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011) (administrative-permitting burdens and interim relief standards)
- National Wildlife Fed'n v. Burlington Northern R.R., 23 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir. 1994) (ESA and administrative-action considerations in public-interest judgments)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 958 F. Supp. 670 (D.D.C. 1997) (scope and standards of agency decision-making under APA)
- Davenport v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (sliding-scale approach to injunction standards)