Folks,

As many of you know, several anti-sportsmen groups are suing to try to stop the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana.
Yesterday, a hearing was held before the Ninth Circuit court of appeals regarding the constitutionality of the Congressional action. A quick update on the oral arguments made in the hearing. Our attorneys feel that: (1) yesterday’s hearing went very well for our side; and (2) if the court follows the law, the delisting of wolf populations will likely be upheld in the current appeal. Just as important, they are optimistic that the court is UNLIKELY to issue an injunction which would stop wolf management in Idaho and Montana.

As many of you are aware, Big Game Forever is an intervening party in this case jointly with a number of other conservation groups including Mule Deer Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Other sportsmen and livestock groups are also intervening parties in the case. One attorney representing all these parties was given 7 minutes to present the case in defense of the Congressional delisting. The attorney representing our position did a great job articulating several important arguments before the court. Additionally, the government’s attorney did a great job explaining why the law supports the constitutionality of the Congressional action.

While the outcome of decisions from the 9th Circuit can be fairly hard to predict, below is some legal analysis directly from Ted Lyon, our legal counsel in the case, related to yesterday’s hearing.

Ryan Benson
Big Game Forever

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Oral arguments just finished defending the constitutionality of Congress delisting the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains. The arguments went very well for our side.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies attempted to start their argument with their plea for an injunction stopping the wolf hunts until this case has been decided. The Court immediately stopped them and told them to focus on the merits of this case instead. In other words, the Court wouldn’t even listen to arguments for an injunction. Our position this entire time has been that the case on the merits controls any argument for an injunction, so the Court’s refusal to permit an argument on the issue agrees with our position.

As for the merits of the case, the main arguments by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Center for Biological Diversity were (1) that the legislation should have been clearer on which laws were exempted by the legislation and (2) that Congress cannot prohibit the courts from reviewing challenges to the newly published delisting rule. The Court responded with a series of questions acknowledging that Congress has a tremendous amount of discretion in exempting laws from environmental statutes. The Court also noted that the agency implementing the legislation may be in the best position to resolve any disagreements on which laws have been exempted. The Court’s questions to the Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity followed the arguments from our brief exactly, which demonstrated to me that our brief made an impact with the Court.

The attorney for the government, David Chilton, did an excellent job in the oral arguments. All the parties agree that our conference on Friday to prepare for oral arguments was extremely helpful in presenting a persuasive, unified defense of the delisting rider. Although it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule, the questions asked by the Court and demeanor of the justices strongly suggests that they will rule in our favor. Keep your fingers crossed.

Ted B. Lyon

Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C.
18601 LBJ Freeway, Suite 525
Mesquite, Texas 75150

Thanks for the update and continued fight in this battle Ryan and Ted. You’re doing great work. – Hunters Against PETA