## Facts

- The red wolf (*Canis rufus*) was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) established a red wolf reintroduction program in eastern North Carolina, releasing captive-bred wolves on federal refuges; some wolves moved onto nearby private lands.
- Under ESA authority, FWS issued a special rule for a “nonessential experimental population” that generally prohibited intentional “taking” (including killing) of red wolves on private land, with limited exceptions (including defense of human life and, under specified conditions, taking wolves actively killing livestock or pets).
- North Carolina enacted a statute allowing private landowners to trap or kill red wolves on private land under broader circumstances than the federal rule.
- Richard Lee Mann III shot a red wolf on private land and was prosecuted under the federal rule; he pled guilty.
- Private landowners and two counties sued federal officials seeking declaratory relief, arguing the federal rule exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause power and conflicted with state law.
- The district court upheld the federal rule; the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, authorize federal restrictions on taking endangered red wolves on private land where the conduct is local and noncommercial.
2. Whether protecting red wolves, considered in the aggregate and as part of the ESA’s broader scheme, substantially affects interstate commerce.
3. Whether the federal regulation is sustained as an essential component of a comprehensive federal endangered-species program.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the federal defendants.
- The court held that the challenged regulation was a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
- The court concluded that protecting red wolves substantially affects interstate commerce when aggregated and when considered within the ESA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme.
- Judge Luttig dissented, reasoning that the regulated conduct—killing a wolf on private land—was intrastate and noncommercial and fell outside Congress’s enumerated powers.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may regulate intrastate activities that, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.
- In applying Commerce Clause limits, courts may consider whether intrastate regulation is necessary to make a broader federal regulatory program effective.
- ESA restrictions on “taking” endangered species on private land may be sustained where species protection is tied to interstate economic activity (including tourism, scientific research, and related economic effects) and where exemptions are addressed through the federal scheme rather than state law.
- State laws authorizing broader lethal taking do not displace valid federal restrictions adopted under the ESA.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld federal limits on taking red wolves on private land, holding that Congress may reach such intrastate, noncommercial conduct under the Commerce Clause because species protection has aggregate interstate economic effects and because regulating takings on private land is necessary to the ESA’s nationwide conservation program.


Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000)