descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

National Audubon Society, Inc. Golden Gate Audubon Society, Inc. Marin Audubon Society, Inc. Muir Beach Audubon Society, Inc. California Waterfowl Association, Inc., and National Trappers Association, Inc. California Trappers Association, Inc. Tim Wion Christopher S. Brennan Loyd E. Horn, Intervenors v. Gray Davis, Governor of California Douglas Wheeler, Resources Secretary, State of California Jacqueline E. Schafer, Director, Cdfg California Department of Fish & Game California Fish & Game Commission, and Ann M. Veneman, U.S. Department of Agriculture Gary Simmons, California State Director, Wildlife Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture Jamie Clark Rappaport, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anne Badgley, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Am Soc Prev Cruelty Protect Pets and Wildlife/vote Yes on Proposition 4 Animal Protection Institute the Ark Trust, Inc. Doris Day Animal League the Fund for Animals the Humane Society of the United States International Fund for Animal Welfare, D

Citation: 312 F.3d 416Docket: 01-15159

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 8, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case, heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involves a lawsuit filed by the National Audubon Society and other wildlife organizations against California state officials and federal officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The plaintiffs challenged state and federal actions, raising issues under the Endangered Species Act and Proposition 4. The appeal stems from a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by District Judge Charles A. Legge. On September 24, 2002, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that was later amended to address preemption issues related to the ESA and Proposition 4. The court denied the plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, with no judges voting to rehear the case en banc after being notified. Furthermore, the court substituted ANN M. VENEMAN and GALE A. NORTON for their predecessors in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). The outcome leaves the original appellate decision in place, effectively dismissing the plaintiffs' challenges at this level.

Legal Issues Addressed

Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Application: The court considered and unanimously denied the plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc regarding the appeal decision.

Reasoning: The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing, with Judges Thomas and W. Fletcher also voting against rehearing en banc, which Judge Goodwin recommends.

Preemption and Endangered Species Act

Application: The court addressed arguments concerning the preemption of state law by the Endangered Species Act, specifically evaluating Proposition 4.

Reasoning: The court's opinion from September 24, 2002, has been amended to delete Footnote 7 and revise the language in the second full paragraph on page 14930 regarding arguments against preemption related to Proposition 4 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Substitution of Parties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2)

Application: The court ordered the substitution of new federal officials as parties in the appeal, in accordance with procedural rules.

Reasoning: Additionally, ANN M. VENEMAN and GALE A. NORTON have been substituted for their predecessors in line with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).