Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Held V. State, Alec D. Skuntz
Held V. State, Alec D. Skuntz
Public Land & Resources Law Review
On March 13, 2020, a group of 16 Montana children and teenagers filed a complaint in the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County against the State of Montana and several state agencies. These young Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants for their complicity in continuing to extract and release harmful amounts of greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change. Plaintiffs premised their argument on the Montana Constitution’s robust environmental rights and protections. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the District Court granted in-part and denied in-part. Held provides a roadmap for future litigation by elucidating …
Citizens For Clean Energy V. United States Department Of The Interior, Anthony Reed
Citizens For Clean Energy V. United States Department Of The Interior, Anthony Reed
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2017, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke issued a new order lifting the previous administration’s 2016 Jewell Order that had placed a moratorium on mineral leases until a programmatic EIS was completed. The new order repealed the moratorium, cancelled the programmatic EIS, and instructed the BLM to expedite new mineral lease applications. Several plaintiffs challenged Zinke’s order, and the United States District Court for the District of Montana ruled that it was a major federal action that triggered NEPA analysis and that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it issued the order without any environmental review.
Preview—Murray V. Bej Minerals, Llc: Finding A Home For Fossils, Layne L. Ryerson
Preview—Murray V. Bej Minerals, Llc: Finding A Home For Fossils, Layne L. Ryerson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this matter on Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:30 AM in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Building, Helena, Montana. The Honorable Olivia Rieger will hear the case in place of Justice Jim Rice, who recused himself. Eric B. Wolff is expected to argue for the Appellants. Harlan B. Krogh is expected to argue for the Appellees.
Kloker V. Fort Peck Tribes, Hallee Kansman
Kloker V. Fort Peck Tribes, Hallee Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Kloker v. Fort Peck Tribes investigates and deciphers the application of the Indian canons of construction to the congressional formation and establishment of the Fort Peck reservation in Montana. In general, courts interpret congressional acts creating reservations through the lens of the tribal-federal government trust relationship. Although this case examines different substantive models of legal interpretation and theories of water law, the ultimate dispute is textual in nature—questioning the plain language of the establishment legislation itself.
Solenex Llc V. Jewell, F. Aaron Rains
Solenex Llc V. Jewell, F. Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Solenex LLC v. Jewell, the Secretary of the Interior cancelled a highly contentious oil and gas lease in Montana’s Badger-Two Medicine area, an environmentally sensitive and culturally significant area to the Blackfeet Tribe, nearly thirty years after the lease had been issued. Solenex, a Louisiana based oil and gas company and holder of the lease, brought this action to enjoin the cancellation. The District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with Solenex and found that the Secretary’s decision took an unreasonable amount of time and violated good-faith contractual obligations. On these grounds, the court found the Secretary’s …
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The protection status of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear continues to elicit debate and find its way into the courtroom. In Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, for the second time in the last decade, a court held the Service’s attempt to delist the Yellowstone Grizzly arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the court found the Service’s evaluation of remnant populations, recalibration, and genetic health deficient. This case demonstrates the importance in and the resilient motivation behind preserving grizzly bear populations and genetics. As the practice of delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act continues, this case will provide important …
Center For Biological Diversity V. Zinke, Ryan Hickey
Center For Biological Diversity V. Zinke, Ryan Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The oft-cited “arbitrary and capricious” standard revived the Center for Biological Diversity’s most recent legal challenge in its decades-long quest to see arctic grayling listed under the Endangered Species Act. While this Ninth Circuit decision did not grant grayling ESA protections, it did require the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider its 2014 finding that listing grayling as threatened or endangered was unwarranted. In doing so, the court found “range,” as used in the ESA, vague while endorsing the FWS’s 2014 clarification of that term. Finally, this holding identified specific shortcomings of the challenged FWS finding, highlighting how …
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabiltiy Act, commonly known as CERCLA, facilitates cleanup of hazardous waste sites and those contaminated by other harmful substances by empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties and require them to undertake or fund remediation. Because pollution sometimes occurrs over long periods of time by multiple parties, CERCLA also enables polluters to seek financial contribution from other contaminators of a particular site. The Ninth Circuit clarified the particuar circumstances under which contribution actions may arise in Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., holding non-CERCLA settlements may give rise to CERCLA contribution …
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
The Clark Fork Coalition V. Tubbs, Jonah P. Brown
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Before landowners may appropriate groundwater in Montana, they must first apply for a DNRC permit pursuant to the Montana Water Use Act. Landowners may qualify for an exemption from the arduous permitting process if their appropriation meets certain criteria. However, the Act provides an exception to the exemption when a “combined appropriation” from the same source is in excess of ten acre-feet per year. The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the DNRC rule defining “combined appropriation” to only include physically connected groundwater wells.
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Kirsa Shelkey
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Kirsa Shelkey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Following years of pressure to list the upper Missouri River population of Arctic grayling as an endangered or threatened species, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued a 2014 Finding that listing the fish was “not warranted at this time.” The Service relied on voluntary Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances in the Big Hole River Basin to determine that listing criteria under the Endangered Species Act was not met and therefore listing was not necessary. Ultimately, the court deferred to agency expertise and found that the Service’s decision not to list the Arctic grayling was reasonable.