Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 12 of 12

Full-Text Articles in Law

Montana Wildlife Federation V. Bernhardt, Henry D. O'Brien Sep 2020

Montana Wildlife Federation V. Bernhardt, Henry D. O'Brien

Public Land & Resources Law Review

A federal court in Montana vacated the lease sale of several large oil and gas developments in Montana and Wyoming because BLM’s revised guidance documents, which facilitated the lease sales, failed to prioritize development outside of sage-grouse habitat, as required by BLM land use plans. BLM adopted the prioritization requirement in 2015 as part of an effort to prevent the sage-grouse from being listed under the Endangered Species Act. The court held BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act when it essentially eliminated the prioritization requirement and approved the lease sales without properly amending the land use plans.


Citizens For Clean Energy V. United States Department Of The Interior, Anthony Reed Nov 2019

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 The new order repealed the moratorium, cancelled the programmatic EIS, and instructed the BLM to expedite new mineral lease applications.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.


Maralex Resources, Inc. V. Barnhardt, Bradley E. Tinker Apr 2019

Maralex Resources, Inc. V. Barnhardt, Bradley E. Tinker

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Maralex Resources v. Barnhardt, Maralex and property owners brought an action to protect private property from BLM inspections of oil and gas lease sites. The Tenth Circuit looked at the plain meaning of a congressional statute and held in favor of Maralex, finding that BLM lacked authority to require a private landowner to provide BLM with a key to inspect wells of their property. The Tenth Circuit held BLM has the authority to conduct inspections without prior notice on private property lease sites; however, it is required to contact the property owner for permission before entering the property.


Brackeen V. Zinke, Bradley E. Tinker Dec 2018

Brackeen V. Zinke, Bradley E. Tinker

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act to counter practices of removing Indian children from their homes, and to ensure the continued existence of Indian tribes through their children. The law created a framework establishing how Indian children are adopted as a way to protect those children and their relationship with their tribe. ICWA also established federal standards for Indian children being placed into non-Indian adoptive homes. Brackeen v. Zinke made an important distinction for the placement preferences of the Indian children adopted by non-Indian plaintiffs; rather than viewing the placement preferences in ICWA as based upon Indians’ …


Western Organization Of Resource Councils V. Zinke, Daniel Brister Sep 2018

Western Organization Of Resource Councils V. Zinke, Daniel Brister

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Due to advances in climate science and an increased understanding of coal’s role as a greenhouse gas, Appellant conservation organizations sued the Secretary of Interior for failing to supplement the 1979 Programmatic EIS for the Federal Coal Management Program. The D.C. Circuit Court held neither NEPA nor the APA required a supplemental EIS and that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the Secretary to prepare one. Expressing sympathy for the Appellants’ position, the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step of offering advice to future plaintiffs on how they might succeed on similar claims.


California V. U.S. Bureau Of Land Management, Oliver F. Wood Apr 2018

California V. U.S. Bureau Of Land Management, Oliver F. Wood

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Land Management from implementing the Suspension Rule, which would delay the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule. Additionally, the court denied the BLM and intervening third parties’ motion to transfer venue to the District of Wyoming. The court held the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction because the BLM did not provide a reasoned analysis for the Suspension Rule. This failure to provide meaningful notice and comment was an arbitrary and capricious abuse …


Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta Jan 2018

Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Wyoming v. Zinke, the Bureau of Land Management attempted to update a regulation governing hydraulic fracturing from the 1980s, but oil and gas industry companies opposed, and brought suit. The district court held in favor of the industry petitioners, and the Bureau of Land Management and citizen group intervenors appealed. In the wake of appeal, Donald J. Trump became President of the United States. The administration change caused the Bureau of Land Management to alter its position and align with the new administration. Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, via executive order, began rescinding the new fracking regulation, …


California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, Molly M. Kelly Jan 2018

California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, Molly M. Kelly

Public Land & Resources Law Review

After President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13783 encouraging relaxing regulatory burdens on energy production, the Bureau of Land Management reevaluated its 2016 “Waste Prevention Rule” which addressed waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, or other leaks resulting from oil and natural gas production activities. The BLM sought to postpone the Rule’s compliance date to give the agency time to promulgate a new rule—effectively overruling the 2016 Rule. Plaintiffs challenged the agency’s compliance under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court found the BLM did not properly follow APA requirements.


Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta Sep 2017

Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta

Public Land & Resources Law Review

No abstract provided.


United States Army Corps Of Engineers V. Hawkes Co., Jonah Brown Aug 2016

United States Army Corps Of Engineers V. Hawkes Co., Jonah Brown

Public Land & Resources Law Review

When landowners seek to determine if a permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge dredged or fill material into waters within their property boundaries, they may first obtain a jurisdictional determination specifying whether “waters of the United States” are present. In an 8-0 judgment, Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes was a victory for landowners, concluding that an approved jurisdictional determination is a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.


Environmental Integrity Project V. Mccarthy, Lindsay Ward Nov 2015

Environmental Integrity Project V. Mccarthy, Lindsay Ward

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In addition to stocking grocery stores and restaurants with beef, chicken and milk, CAFOs generate another product—manure. The EPA’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule compelling CAFOs to provide information to aid the agency in regulating their discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States was upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court concluded that the EPA’s decision was “adequately explained” and “coherent,” supported by the administrative record, and did not conflict with existing law.


Big Lagoon Rancheria V. State Of California, Wesley J. Furlong Aug 2015

Big Lagoon Rancheria V. State Of California, Wesley J. Furlong

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California is, thus far, perhaps the most important Indian law decision in 2015. Rejecting its three-judge panel’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirmed the importance of defending tribal sovereignty against invidious state actions. The court denounced California’s use of Carcieri to de-recognize the Big Lagoon Rancheria and rescind the trust status of its land, characterizing it as “a belated collateral attack” on the Tribe and an “end-run” around the APA.