State of Wyoming v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
279 F.3d 1214 (2002)
- Written by Melanie Moultry, JD
Facts
Beginning in 1930, elk in the State of Wyoming (Wyoming) (plaintiff) became infected with brucellosis, a disease that caused miscarriages. In 1985, Wyoming began to vaccinate elk located on state property. Wyoming sought approval from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to vaccinate elk located within Wyoming’s National Elk Refuge (NER). A failure to obtain the FWS’s approval would jeopardize Wyoming’s federal certification as a brucellosis-free cattle industry. The FWS denied Wyoming’s request on the basis that there was inadequate data to determine the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. For over 10 years, the FWS failed to make a final determination regarding the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. Wyoming sued the federal government (defendant) in district court, claiming that Wyoming had a sovereign right to manage elk within the NER. A savings clause within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-ee, stated that the Act should not be construed to limit state authority to manage wildlife within the national wildlife-refuge system. Wyoming also claimed that the FWS’s failure to allow elk vaccinations in the NER violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06. The district court dismissed Wyoming’s complaint, finding that the Act gave the FWS unlimited discretion to manage wildlife in the NER. Wyoming appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baldock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.