## Facts

- New Jersey created the State Fish and Game Council as an eleven-member, appointive body within the Department of Environmental Protection with responsibilities tied to wildlife management and hunting and fishing regulation.
- Under N.J.S.A. 13:1B-24, Council members were to be selected from specified constituencies (including sportsmen, farmers, and commercial fishermen).
- The statute required that appointments be drawn from candidates recommended by designated private organizations representing those constituencies.
- Environmental and humane-treatment organizations, along with individual citizens and taxpayers, challenged the statutory composition and recommendation scheme, alleging it structurally excluded environmentalists and similar interests from eligibility.
- The Chancery Division, on stipulated facts and legal argument, held the statute unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and enjoined further appointments under the existing scheme.
- State officials and related defendants appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting eligibility for appointment to the Fish and Game Council to persons recommended by specified private organizations violates equal protection or due process under the federal or state constitutions by excluding other interested groups, including environmentalists.
2. Whether requiring recommendations by designated private entities as a condition of appointment constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of governmental power.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court and upheld N.J.S.A. 13:1B-24 as constitutional.
- The court applied rational-basis review because the challenged scheme did not involve a suspect classification or burden a fundamental right.
- The court concluded the legislature could rationally limit membership to persons associated with constituencies likely to have relevant experience or specialized knowledge for fish and game regulation.
- The court rejected the delegation challenge, holding that private organizations only recommended candidates; the Governor (with Senate advice and consent) retained appointment authority.
- The court found no due process violation because exclusion from eligibility for an appointive position did not deprive plaintiffs of a protected liberty or property interest.
- The injunction against appointments under the statute was dissolved.

## Legal Principles

- There is no general constitutional right to be appointed to public office; legislative qualifications for appointive positions are valid if rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.
- When no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated, classifications affecting eligibility for appointive office are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny.
- Legislatures may structure appointive boards to include members from specified constituencies and may require nominations or recommendations from private organizations, so long as public officials retain final appointment power and private entities do not exercise binding governmental authority.
- Due process protections generally do not attach where a claimant lacks a protected entitlement to appointment, and a statute merely limits eligibility for an appointive position.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the statutory scheme for constituting the Fish and Game Council, holding that limiting appointments to candidates recommended by specified private organizations was rationally related to the Council’s functions and did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination, deprivation of due process, or improper delegation of governmental power.


Humane Soc'y of the U.S., N.J. Branch, Inc. v. N.J. State Fish & Game Council, 70 N.J. 565, 362 A.2d 20 (1976)