Safari Club International v. Salazar
281 F.R.D. 32
D.D.C.2012Background
- Consolidated actions challenge the FWS Final Rule removing the Captive-bred Exemption for three antelope species under the ESA.
- FOA and Defenders of Wildlife move to intervene as defendants in SCI Action; FOA also seeks intervention in EWA Action; HSUS and Born Free USA seek intervention in SCI Action.
- Plaintiffs allege the Final Rule violates the ESA and APA and seek preliminary injunctions.
- The court previously held the Captive-bred Exemption violated the ESA and NEPA in 2009, remanding for further proceedings.
- Rule 24(a) intervention standard is analyzed; standing and informational injury are central to FOA and DOW’s arguments.
- Judge Howell grants intervention to FOA and DOW, denies intervention to HSUS and Born Free USA, and allows FOA and DOW to participate as defendant-intervenors in the consolidated case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOA and DOW may intervene as of right | FOA/DOW lack standing and interest in captive-bred herds. | FOA/DOW have informational standing and an interest under §10(c). | FOA and DOW granted intervention of right. |
| Whether FOA and DOW have Article III standing | Standing not shown; no injury traceable to challenged action. | Informational injury from §10(c) permits standing; ongoing access to information. | FOA and DOW have standing. |
| Whether SCI correctly contests the intervenors' standing | SCI argues no interest in U.S. captive populations and no causation. | Historical standing findings in related cases support standing. | Court relies on prior standing analyses supporting FOA and DOW. |
| Whether adequate representation and timeliness support intervention | Not explicitly addressed; concerns about representation specificity. | Intervenors moved early; representation adequate. | Timeliness and inadequate representation satisfied; intervention allowed. |
| Whether HSUS and Born Free USA may permissively intervene | Not necessary given standing issues. | Permissive intervention not clearly warranted; standing lacking. | Court declines permissive intervention for HSUS and Born Free USA. |
Key Cases Cited
- ASPCA v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 659 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (denial of access to information can support standing for informational injuries)
- United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standing framework for association plaintiffs)
- Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (likelihood of adequate representation influences intervention analysis)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1972) (minimal burden to show inadequate representation)