AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Various individuals and wildlife protection organizations appealed the New Mexico Game Commission's 2016 amendment to a bear and cougar management and hunting rule, known as the Cougar Rule. This rule, established under the New Mexico Fish and Game Act, was amended to increase the number of cougars that could be hunted, authorize the trapping and snaring of cougars on certain lands without a special permit, and shorten the sport trapping season. The appellants challenged the amendment as being without scientific support, arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the Commission's amendment to the Cougar Rule was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, lacking scientific support (para 3).
• Commission: Contended that the Court of Appeals lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, arguing there is no specific constitutional or statutory right to appeal actions taken by it under the Fish and Game Act. Instead, the right of review should be via a writ of certiorari from the district court (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals has subject matter jurisdiction to review the Commission’s amended Cougar Rule (para 6).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, through Judge Kristina Bogardus, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Julie J. Vargas concurring, found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Commission's amendment to the Cougar Rule. The court determined that direct appeals of the Commission's regulations are only authorized when express legislative authorization specifies a right of direct appeal. The appellants' argument, based on the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA), was rejected because the Cougar Rule was promulgated under the general authority of the Fish and Game Act, not the WCA. The court concluded that the WCA's provision for judicial review applies specifically and exclusively to regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act, and cannot be extended to all regulations issued by the Commission. The court also addressed and dismissed the appellants' additional arguments regarding implied jurisdiction and the timeliness of the Commission's jurisdictional challenge. Finally, the court declined the appellants' request to transfer the appeal to district court, emphasizing the procedural requirements and the district court's authority to issue a writ of certiorari (paras 6-19).