CASE NO. 16-2189 (consolidated with 16-2202)

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants, and

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al.,

Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the District of New Mexico

The Honorable William P. Johnson

District Court Case No. 1:16cv-00462-WJ-KBM

RESPONSE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH

Paul S. Weiland, CA Bar No. 237058

pweiland@nossaman.com

Benjamin Z. Rubin, CA Bar No. 249630

brubin@nossaman.com

Ashley J. Remillard, CA Bar No. 252374

aremillard@nossaman.com

NOSSAMAN LLP

18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800

Irvine, CA 92612

Telephone: 949.833.7800

Facsimile: 949.833.7878

Matthias L. Sayer, NM Bar No. 147231

General Counsel

MatthiasL.Sayer@state.nm.us

New Mexico Department of Game and

Fish

1 Wildlife Way

Santa Fe, NM 87507

Telephone: 505.476.8148

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH

Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019712765 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 1

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page:

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iv

GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... xi

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ............................................................... xii

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ...................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES........................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. 4

I. LEGAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 4

A. The Reservation of State’s Rights under the Federal

System ............................................................................................. 4

B. Wildlife Management under New Mexico Law ............................. 5

C. The Endangered Species Act and Nonessential

Experimental Populations ............................................................... 6

D. Intergovernmental Cooperation ...................................................... 8

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 10

A. Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf ................................................. 10

1. Recovery Plan Efforts ........................................................ 10

2. The 10(j) Rule for the Mexican Gray Wolf ....................... 12

B. Permitting Activities ..................................................................... 15

1. Prior Permitting Efforts ...................................................... 15

2. Recent Permit Applications ................................................ 15

3. The Service’s Reaction to New Mexico’s Permit

Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019712765 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 2

ii

Denial ................................................................................. 18

C. Reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf ................................... 19

D. Inbreeding Effects on Litter Sizes ................................................ 21

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................. 22

STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 24

ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 26

I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT

NEW MEXICO WAS LIKELY TO SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY26

A. The Release of Mexican Wolves Will Harm New

Mexico’s Ability to Manage Ungulate Herds During the

Litigation ....................................................................................... 26

B. The Release of Mexican Wolves Will Harm the

Sovereign Interests of the State .................................................... 30

II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONCLUDING THE

BALANCE OF HARMS FAVORS AN INJUNCTION ........................ 33

A. The Service Overstates the Alleged Harm to the

Nonessential, Experimental Population of Mexican

Wolves and Understates the Harm to New Mexico ..................... 33

B. The Service Could Obtain the Requisite Permits ......................... 37

III. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT

ISSUANCE OF AN INJUCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST .... 39

IV. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT

NEW MEXICO IS LIKELY TO SUCCEEED ON THE MERITS ....... 42

A. Federal Law Claims ...................................................................... 42

1. The Service Does Not Have a Statutory

Responsibility to Release Mexican Wolves ....................... 42

2. The Service’s Interpretation is Not Entitled to

Auer Deference ................................................................... 51

Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019712765 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 3

iii

3. The District Court’s Ruling is Consistent with

ESA Section 6(a) ................................................................ 54

4. The District Court’s Ruling Is Consistent with 50

C.F.R. § 17.81(d) ................................................................ 55

B. State Law Claims .......................................................................... 57

1. New Mexico’s State Claims are Not Barred by

Sovereign Immunity ........................................................... 57

2. New Mexico’s State Claims are Not Barred by

Intergovernmental Immunity ............................................. 58

3. New Mexico’s State Law Claims are Not

Preempted ........................................................................... 61

V. THE FOUNDATION’S ARGUMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT AND

UNPERSUASIVE ................................................................................... 67

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 70

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A)

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION

ADDENDUM

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE

DISTRICT COURT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019712765 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 4

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Federal Cases

Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Kempthorne,

477 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 45

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson,

194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 25

American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Williams,

–– F.3d ––, No. 15-3400, 2016 WL 4177216 (7th Cir. Aug. 8,

2016) ............................................................................................................. 44, 45

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen,

640 F.2d 255 (10th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................ 25

Auer v. Robbins,

519 U.S. 452 (1997) ...................................................................................... 51, 52

Autoskill Inc. v. Nat’l Educ. Support Sys., Inc.,

994 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir.1993) ........................................................................... 25

State of New Mexico ex rel. Bill Richardson v. BLM,

565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 32

Black Dog Outfitters, Inc. v. Idaho Outfitters & Guides Licensing Bd.,

790 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D. Idaho 2011) ......................................................... 65, 66

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,

467 U.S. 837 (1984) ............................................................................................ 51

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,

–– U.S. ––, 132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012) ............................................................... 52, 53

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States,

316 U.S. 407 (1942) .............................................................................................. 9