Christy Et Al. v. Lujan, Secretary of the Interior, Et Al.

1989-06-12

Headline: A Montana herder’s challenge to penalties for killing endangered grizzlies is denied: Court refuses review, leaving lower-court rulings that bar killing protected bears and impose penalties in place.

Holding: The Court refused to hear the case, leaving lower-court rulings intact that a herder’s killing of an endangered grizzly violated the Endangered Species Act and resulted in a $2,500 penalty.

Real World Impact:

Leaves penalties for killing endangered wildlife against livestock owners in place.
Limits herders’ ability to use force against protected animals without penalty.
Maintains lower courts’ rejection of the herder’s constitutional takings claim.

Topics: endangered species, wildlife protection, property rights, livestock losses

Summary

Background

A Montana herder grazed sheep near Glacier National Park. Between July 1 and July 9, 1982, grizzly bears killed 20 of his sheep. When park rangers did not stop the attacks, the herder shot and killed one bear on July 9. Grizzlies are listed as endangered, and federal law makes it illegal to harm or kill such animals. The herder was assessed a $2,500 penalty and sued to block enforcement and avoid payment, claiming a right to defend his property and that the law amounted to an uncompensated taking.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the herder’s constitutional claims — a right to defend his livestock and a Fifth Amendment taking — required Supreme Court review. Lower courts rejected his claims, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving those rejections in place. Justice White dissented from the denial and argued the property-defense and takings questions were substantial and warranted full review.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the lower-court decisions remain binding on this dispute. That means enforcement of the Endangered Species Act against someone who kills a protected bear in these circumstances continues, and the $2,500 penalty stands for now. The Court’s action was procedural — it did not resolve the constitutional questions on the merits; those questions could be raised again in another case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White wrote a dissent explaining that the right to defend one’s property is deeply rooted in legal tradition and that forbidding resistance to protected animals might amount to an uncompensated taking deserving plenary review.