The State of Wyoming filed this suit in the District of Wyoming against Gale A. Norton in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior ("DOI")1 and Steven A. Williams in his official capacity as the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS").2 The District Court consolidated this case with a similar suit brought against the DOI and the FWS by a group of organizations known collectively as the Wolf Coalition. The District Court also granted several motions to intervene submitted by parties on both sides of this matter. The facts of this case are fully set forth in the District Court's opinion. See Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1245 (D.Wyo.2005).

The Plaintiffs alleged various constitutional claims under Article IV's Guarantee Clause and the Tenth Amendment, as well as violations of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., in connection with the DOI's and the FWS's alleged failure to manage and control the gray wolf population in Wyoming and their failure to initiate delisting of the gray wolf as an endangered species. After reviewing the briefs and the administrative record, and after hearing oral argument, the District Court issued a thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order denying relief on all causes of action and dismissing the case. Wyoming, 360 F.Supp.2d at 1245.

With respect to the statutory claims, the District Court concluded that the Plaintiffs neither identified a "final agency action" nor demonstrated that the Defendants "unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" statutorily required action necessary for judicial review under the APA. See Wyoming, 360 F.Supp.2d at 1231-34, 1236 (citing Colo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 220 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir.2000) and Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 124 S. Ct. 2373, 159 L. Ed. 2d 137 (2004)). Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the statutory causes of action. With respect to the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims, the District Court concluded that the Defendants' actions "are consistent with the powers delegated to them by Congress through the ESA via the Commerce Clause, and these actions do not invade any province of Wyoming's state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment." Id. at 1244. Accordingly, the District Court denied relief on these claims.

We take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court for substantially the same reasons given in its opinion. See Wyoming, 360 F.Supp.2d at 1214-36, 1238-45. Because we hold, however, that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify a final agency action which is necessary to satisfy the statutory standing requirements under the APA, see Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1203 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that without agency action plaintiffs have no standing to sue under the APA), unlike the District Court, we express no opinion on the merits of the Plaintiffs' ESA and NEPA claims, see Wyoming, 360 F.Supp.2d at 1236-38 (holding in the alternative that Plaintiffs' NEPA claim fails on the merits). Finally, we DENY all outstanding motions.