Skip to comments.Circuit court declares Northern Rockies wolf-hunting case moot
Posted on 11/09/2012 10:14:25 AM PST by jazusamo
A part of the legal fight over hunting wolves in the Northern Rockies officially disappeared from the record when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the case moot on Wednesday.
In 2010, federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled that gray wolves were improperly stripped of Endangered Species Act protection in Montana and Idaho. Later that year, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., got an amendment through Congress declaring wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains a recovered species under the ESA and blocking any further legal review.
Molloy, in a separate decision, agreed Congress had the power to shield the issue from court review even though he thought such power was unconstitutional. Montana and Idaho resumed public wolf hunts in 2011.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit granted a motion by the states of Montana and Idaho along with several private hunting and livestock organizations that declared Molloy's wolf ruling "dismissed, vacated and remanded." They ordered Molloy to consider the underlying case as moot.
"The bottom line is environmental groups cannot refer to the Molloy ruling as precedent since the 9th Circuit Court vacated it and wolves in Idaho and Montana remain under state management," Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation spokesman Mark Holyoak said in an email on Thursday.
Glad to see the 9th Circus slap down Molloy, hopefully this will end his activism.
Judge Molloy, a Clinton appointee, has been a friend to the enviros and anti hunting groups in the Northwest.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Molloy is playing games ?
Yeah, that’s it exactly. If it’s unconstitutional, that ought to trump everything else.
But I think that what has happened, is that Congress started this way way back by telling courts they couldn’t review taxes until they were paid. And the courts accepted it, because it dramatically reduced the frivolous filings and their workload.
The end result is this crazy doctrine that plantiffs don’t have standing until after the plantiff has actually suffered harm, nevermind how much harm is bearing down on poor plantiff.
"If I were not constrained by what I believe is binding precedent ... I would hold Section 1713 is unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine," Molloy wrote in his 18-page decision.
But he added higher courts have held that "so long as Congress uses the words without regard to any other provision in statute or regulation that applies,' or something similar, then the doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires the court to impose a saving interpretation(.)"
Yes, it is some good news after everything else this week.
I erred in saying the 9th Circus slapped down Molloy with this ruling, they actually slapped down the enviro groups appealing Molloy’s ruling per my post #12.
After reading that excerpt, this seems to be a different issue. And not really a constitutional issue.
It’s appears now that the court does have judicial review. It’s just that Congress effectively said, delist these regardless of any other laws we have passed. So there is no conflict with the constitution, just prior legislation, and Congress with their wording, said this law trumps prior legislation.
So now it’s just a judge that want’s to apply other laws when Congress has effectively said this is an exception to other laws.
I think it is constitutional for Congress to say “Do this” regardless of any other laws we have passed. The presumption being that congress knows what other laws they have passed, and mean to “Do this” regardless. Congress would have the power to enumerate all the other laws and pass exceptions to them. It might be a little dangerous if overused, but Congress clearly has that power.