## Facts

- Man Hing Ivory and Imports, Inc., a California wholesaler, sought to import and sell African elephant ivory products in California.
- Federal regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed the African elephant as endangered but allowed limited trade in elephant products through special federal permits.
- California Penal Code § 653o broadly prohibited importing into California, or possessing with intent to sell, any part of an elephant, effectively banning elephant-part trade in the state even when federally permitted.
- Man Hing obtained (or sought to rely on) federal permits authorizing the trade and asserted that California’s ban conflicted with federal law and international commitments.
- Man Hing sued for declaratory relief that § 653o was preempted by CITES and by the ESA and its implementing regulations.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Man Hing, concluding the ESA and regulations preempted § 653o as applied to federally permitted trade; California officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether CITES preempts California Penal Code § 653o’s prohibition on trade in African elephant products.
2. Whether ESA § 6(f), together with federal regulations allowing permitted trade, preempts § 653o to the extent it bans federally authorized international trade.
3. Whether federal permit language requiring compliance with “State laws and regulations” preserves California’s ban notwithstanding ESA § 6(f).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment for Man Hing.
- CITES did not preempt § 653o because CITES permits parties and subnational governments to adopt stricter domestic protections.
- ESA § 6(f) expressly preempted (rendered void) § 653o insofar as it prohibited international trade in African elephant products that federal law and regulations permitted or authorized under federal permits.
- The permit condition referencing compliance with “State laws and regulations” was construed narrowly and did not allow California to bar federally authorized trade; it was limited to areas such as health, quarantine, customs, and agricultural laws.

## Legal Principles

- Express preemption turns on congressional intent, most clearly shown by statutory text directly displacing state regulation.
- Under ESA § 6(f), state laws are void to the extent they regulate import/export or interstate/foreign commerce in endangered species when the activity is permitted or authorized by the ESA or its implementing regulations.
- A state may not use a blanket prohibition to nullify federally permitted international trade authorized under ESA regulations.
- CITES establishes minimum international trade controls and expressly allows stricter domestic measures; therefore, CITES alone does not invalidate more protective state wildlife laws.
- Regulatory language conditioning federal permits on compliance with state law does not override ESA § 6(f) and is limited to specific categories of state regulation (e.g., health, quarantine, customs, agricultural).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that while CITES allows states to impose stricter protections, ESA § 6(f) expressly preempts a state ban to the extent it prohibits federally permitted international commerce in endangered-species products; California therefore could not enforce its elephant-parts trade ban against federally authorized African elephant ivory trade.


Man Hing Ivory & Imports, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1983)