Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Constitutional Law-Review Of State Court Determination-Supreme Court's Vacation Of State Court Judgment Without Giving Grounds For Reversal, Marcus A. Rowden S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States granted plaintiff's petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Supreme Court of California summarily denying plaintiff's application for habeas corpus. Previously the cause had been continued to enable petitioner to secure a determination of the California Supreme Court as to whether its judgment was intended to rest on an adequate independent state ground. It was later held that a letter from the clerk of that court was not a sufficient determination of that question, and petitioner was still unable to obtain that determination. Held, judgment of the Supreme Court of …