Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals hears constitutional challenge to Utah law that loosened cougar regulations
Summary
Two conservation organizations told the Utah Court of Appeals that 2023’s House Bill 469 conflicts with the 2020 constitutional amendment protecting the right to hunt and fish by stripping regulatory authority over cougars from the executive branch; the State urged dismissal on standing and political-question grounds.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a constitutional challenge brought by the Mountain Lion Foundation and Western Wildlife Conservancy against House Bill 469, a 2023 statute the plaintiffs say effectively removed most regulatory protections for cougars.
Appellants' counsel Jessica Bloom told the three-judge panel that the 2020 voter-approved amendment to the Utah Constitution — which recognizes a right to hunt and fish "forever preserved for the public good" — imposes a conservation and management obligation on the state. Bloom said HB 469 "abrogate[s] the executive's authority to regulate cougars," removing nearly all references to cougar from the wildlife code and prompting the Utah Wildlife Board to repeal related regulations.
State counsel Sarah Goldberg told the court the challenge should be dismissed for three reasons: lack of third-party or public-interest standing, the text of the amendment does not mandate protection of any particular species, and the question present is a nonjusticiable political question. "There are three reasons the conservation group should not be able to maintain their challenge," Goldberg said.
Judges on the panel repeatedly pressed both counsel on the scope of the constitutional right and the proper procedural path. They asked whether plaintiffs had to exhaust administrative remedies, whether the 2020 amendment's language requires conservation and management by the executive branch, and whether the court would be forced into value-laden ecological judgments that are better left to elected branches.
Bloom argued exhaustion was not required because the agency had no meaningful authority to act after the legislature directed removal of cougar-specific regulations and because board members had declined alternative regulatory approaches at a June 2023 session. On standing, Bloom said the organizations represent Utah members, including hunters, and asserted both associational and public-interest bases for litigation.
Goldberg urged the court instead to focus first on justiciability, asserting that even if plaintiffs could show injury, the remedy sought would put courts in the position of resolving delicate ecological policy tradeoffs. The state also noted recent legislative changes that may affect public-interest standing rules and urged the court to consider jurisdictional questions carefully.
After extended questioning, the panel said it would take the case under advisement and issue a written decision.
The appeal asks the Court of Appeals to interpret the newly enacted constitutional right to hunt and fish and to determine whether a statute that removed most regulatory references to a species is facially or as-applied unconstitutional because it disables the executive's ability to comply with the amendment's conservation and management language. Because the case raises separation-of-powers, standing and political-question issues, the court's written opinion will likely address jurisdiction before reaching the merits.
