## Facts

- Several American hunters legally hunted African elephants in Mozambique and sought to import tusks and other parts into the United States as sport-hunted trophies.
- African elephants are regulated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and CITES; trophy imports require a permit and a showing that the import will “enhance the survival of the species.”
- The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) requested information from Mozambique about elephant management, including an approved management plan, population monitoring, and enforcement against poaching.
- FWS concluded it could not verify a sufficiently robust national elephant management plan or adequate enforcement capacity and found gaps in reliable data showing sustainable offtake.
- FWS denied the permit applications, reasoning that Mozambique lacked resources to manage a sustainable program and that applicants failed to show the required enhancement.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the denials misapplied the ESA standard and were arbitrary and capricious.

## Issues

1. Whether FWS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law under the APA in denying trophy-import permits based on a failure to show that imports would “enhance the survival” of the African elephant.
2. Whether FWS permissibly considered Mozambique’s broader management and enforcement regime, rather than focusing only on asserted conservation benefits from the particular hunts.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion.
- The court upheld FWS’s permit denials, finding the agency’s enhancement determination reasonable and supported by the administrative record.
- The court held that APA review is highly deferential and does not permit the court to substitute its judgment for the agency’s, particularly on scientific or technical matters.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, agency action is upheld if the agency examined relevant data and provided a reasoned explanation with a rational connection between facts found and the decision made.
- ESA/CITES trophy-import permits for listed species may be denied unless the applicant demonstrates the import will “enhance the survival of the species,” and the applicant bears that burden.
- In assessing “enhancement,” FWS may evaluate broader, country-level factors such as management planning, monitoring, and enforcement capacity, not merely claimed financial or local benefits tied to a particular hunt.
- Courts generally defer to reasonable agency choices among scientific or technical approaches when the agency explains its reasoning and the record supports it.

## Conclusion

The court sustained FWS’s denial of elephant trophy-import permits because the agency reasonably found that deficiencies in Mozambique’s national management framework, monitoring, and enforcement meant plaintiffs had not shown that the imports would enhance the species’ survival, and the APA required deference to that record-based determination.


Franks v. Salazar, 816 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2011)