Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 1 Nos. 16-2189, 16-2202 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, Plaintiff-Appellee; v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendant-Appellants; DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Defendant-Intervenor-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, NO. 1:16-CV-00462-WJ-KBM (HON. WILLIAM P. JOHNSON) DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF McCrystie Adams James Jay Tutchton Defenders of Wildlife 535 16th Street, Suite 310 Denver, CO 80202 (720) 943-0459 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor- Appellants Defenders of Wildlife, et al. September 23, 2016 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Defendant-Intervenor- Appellants Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and New Mexico Wilderness Alliance state they have no parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates that have issued shares to the public. i Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................................................v GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................xi STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ............................................................................xii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ....................................................................................1 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .....................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........................................................................................1 I. LEGAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................1 A. The Endangered Species Act ..........................................................................1 B. FWS’s Section 10(j) Regulations .....................................................................4 C. The Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Policy ........................5 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................5 A. The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Program ................................................5 1. The Endangered Mexican Wolf ..........................................................5 2. The Wild Population’s Genetic Imperilment ....................................7 B. FWS’s Revised 10(j) Rule for the Mexican Wolf ..........................................9 C. FWS’s Attempts to Obtain Permits From New Mexico .......................... 10 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................... 11 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 13 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 15 ii Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 4 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS .......... 15 II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT NEW MEXICO IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON ITS FEDERAL LAW CLAIM ...................................................................................... 15 A. The ESA Requires FWS to Recover Mexican Wolves ............................. 16 B. The District Court’s Ruling is Inconsistent with ESA Section 6(a) ........ 19 C. The District Court’s Ruling is Inconsistent with FWS’s Section 10(j) Regulations .................................................................. 21 D. The District Court’s Ruling Renders the Exception in 43 C.F.R. § 24.4(i)(5)(i) Meaningless ................................... 22 III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT NEW MEXICO IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON ITS STATE LAW CLAIMS ......................................................................................... 23 A. The District Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over New Mexico’s State Law Claims ........................................................................................... 23 B. The New Mexico’s State Law Claims Are Preempted .............................. 25 1. New Mexico’s State Law Claim Regarding Importation of Wolves is Expressly Preempted by ESA Section 6(f) ............... 26 2. New Mexico’s State Law Claims Are Preempted Under “Conflict Preemption” Principles ........................................ 28 IV. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE EQUITABLE PRONGS OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD ARE IN NEW MEXICO’S FAVOR ............ 29 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 30 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A) iii Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 5 CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION STATUTORY AND REGULATORY ADDENDUM DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE DISTRICT COURT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iv Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Alto Eldorado Partnership v. County of Santa Fe, 634 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2011)............................................................................... 26 Arizona and New Mexico Coalition of Counties for Economic Growth. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., No. 4:15-CV-00179-TUC-JGZ (D. Ariz.) ...................................................... xii-xiii Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) .................................................................................................. 23 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Jiron, 762 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2005)................................................................................ 23 Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Babbitt, 146 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1998)............................................................................... 19 California v. ARC American Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989) ..................................................................................................... 28 Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, No. 4:15-cv-00019-TUC-JGZ (D. Ariz.) ................................................. xii, xiii, 27 Center for Native Ecosystems v. Cables, 509 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2007)................................................................................. 2 Citizens United v. Gessler, 773 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2014)............................................................................... 15 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) .................................................................................................. 18 Cure Land, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 4254932 (10th Cir. 2016) ...................................................... 20 El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 24 v Appellate Case: 16-2189 Document: 01019694607 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 7 Elwell v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 693 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2012)............................................................................... 18 English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) ..................................................................................................... 26 Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................2 Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) ................................................................................................... 28 G.H. Daniels III & Assocs., Inc. v. Perez, 626 Fed. Appx. 205 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) ............................................ 21 Hamm v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 506 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 20 Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167 (1976) .................................................................................................. 20 Hillsborough County, Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) ............................................................................................. 25, 29 Kamen v. Kemper Financial Servs., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) ................................................................................................ 26-27 Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, 772 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014)............................................................................... 15 Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) .................................................................................................. 26 Lesesne v. Doe, 712 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 26 Man Hing Ivory and Imports, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................