This case presents difficult questions for me. The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining, and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law. The principle behind the rule of law is to provide a mechanism and process to guide and constrain the government's exercise of power. Political decisions derive their legitimacy from the proper function of the political process within the constraints of limited government, guided by a constitutional structure that acknowledges the importance of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. That legitimacy is enhanced by a meaningful, predictable, and transparent process.

Controversy began over the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf in 2009, when US Fish and Wildlife Services [official website] removed [federal registrar notice, PDF] them from the ESA, after a controversial Interior Department memo was published that several animals should be taken off the list despite their numbers not being at a sustainable level. However, Fish and Wildlife Services only gave control of the wolf population to state governments in Montana and Idaho, restricting the wolves in Wyoming under Federal guidelines. In August 2010, Judge Malloy ruled that it was improper to remove restrictions in one jurisdiction and not another, and put the wolves back on the ESA entirely. In response, the "wolf rider" was attached to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act of 2011 [materials] bill, which became law in April. This reissued the previous rule, including the restrictions for hunting in Wyoming.