Franks v. Salazar
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
816 F. Supp. 2d 49 (2011)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Starting in the mid-1970s, Mozambique’s population of African elephants went into sharp decline. The trend was mostly due to illegal poaching, but some elephants were killed by people who legally purchased licenses to hunt for sport. Three American hunters, Lawrence Franks, Steve Sellers, and George Brown (the hunters) (plaintiffs) each legally killed an elephant in Mozambique and sought to bring the bodies to the United States to display as trophies. However, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the agency) (defendant) forbade importation of the trophies, citing regulations promulgated pursuant to international agreements and the Endangered Species Act. The regulations required the import of trophies of an endangered species to serve a purpose that enhanced the survival of the species. Before issuing its final decision, the agency sought information from the government of Mozambique but was unable to determine whether the country had an official plan in place for the management of the African elephant population. The agency ultimately concluded that Mozambique lacked the resources to effectively manage a plan to promote a sustainable elephant population. The hunters sought review of the agency’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Both sides moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lamberth, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.