CASE NO. 16-2189 (consolidated with 16-2202) ORAL ARGUMENT ... · PDF file case no. 16-2189...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    29-Sep-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of CASE NO. 16-2189 (consolidated with 16-2202) ORAL ARGUMENT ... · PDF file case no. 16-2189...

  • 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