THE TRUMPETER SWAN SOCIETY, ET AL. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (TSCA II)

ON JULY 22, 2013. POSTED IN LATEST NEWS, LITIGATION

Washington, D.C. – In a legal victory for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its constituents, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed yet another lawsuit driven by the activist group the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

The Trumpeter Swan Society, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., lawsuit, which was filed on June 7, 2012, by CBD and other lead ammunition ban proponents, alleged that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is legally obligated to regulate lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  CBD pushed for this lawsuit despite having its previous lawsuit CBD v. EPA, which alleged the exact same claims, thrown out of court, and after the EPA twice denied CBD’s petitions to ban lead ammunition because the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition under TSCA.

As part of NRA’s continuing efforts to protect hunters and recreational shooters from special interest groups seeking to restrict or eliminate hunting by banning the use of traditional lead ammunition, the NRA and Safari Club International obtained permission from the United States District Court in Washington, D.C. to intervene in the Trumpeter Swan lawsuit and the previous CBD v. EPA litigation.

Both lawsuits claimed that wildlife, especially scavenging avian such as California Condors and Bald and Golden Eagles, are getting lead poisoning from eating lead bullet fragments in carrion left in the field by hunters. CBD also claimed that humans are at risk of lead poisoning by consuming meat containing lead bullet fragments from harvested game.

The District Court dismissed the Trumpeter Swan suit, however, finding that the EPA acted within its authority when it determined that the 2012 petition that CBD Plaintiffs based their legal action on was a petition for reconsideration rather than a petition for rulemaking and therefore was insufficient to establish jurisdiction for the suit.