Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part a district court’s granting of injunctive relief preventing the State of Montana from authorizing wolf trapping and snaring in certain places and at certain times of year when grizzly bears would not be denning. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court applied the proper preliminary injunction standard and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when determining that the plaintiffs raised a serious question on the merits as to whether Montana’s recreational wolf trapping and snaring regulations would cause unlawful “take” of grizzly bears. The Ninth Circuit further found that “it was plausible for the district court to find a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring season proceed as planned,” including because the plaintiffs’ evidence showed that nearly 40% of grizzly bears would be active during the proposed wolf trapping season due in part to the warming of temperatures and the availability of vegetal food earlier and later in the year. The Ninth Circuit found that the temporal scope of the injunction was supported but that it was geographically overbroad. The Ninth Circuit also found that the injunction should not have applied to wolf trapping and snaring related to government research. One judge dissented in part, writing that the preliminary injunction should have been vacated entirely.

After the State of Montana adopted new wolf trapping and snaring regulations, parties to a lawsuit challenging the previous regulations agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit. The new regulations incorporated a preliminary injunction’s temporal and geographic limitations. The court had imposed the limitations upon finding that the plaintiffs presented a “substantial body of evidence” that future unlawful takes of grizzly bears in legal wolf and coyote traps were reasonably certain under the previous regulations, including evidence regarding a trend of grizzly bears being active outside their dens during the trapping season due to a warmer winter climate. The defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs $210,000 for attorneys’ fees, costs, and other litigation expenses.

The federal district court for the District of Montana denied motions for summary judgment in advance of a December 2024 bench trial in conservation groups’ lawsuit asserting that Montana’s authorization of wolf and coyote trapping and snaring in grizzly bear habitat would result in unlawful take of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act, due in part to increased wintertime grizzly bear activity. Regarding the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, the court found that there were unresolved factual issues regarding whether future grizzly bear takings by wolf and coyote traps were reasonably certain. The court also found that questions regarding whether coyote traps and snares threaten grizzly bears prevented partial summary judgment for agricultural groups that intervened as defendants. The court also rejected the defendants’ challenges to the plaintiffs’ notice of intent to sue and granted in part motions to compel expert disclosures. The court noted that the bench trial was scheduled to start on December 2, 2024.