The Public Land and Resources Law Review

Our new website contains our entire archive, student written case summaries, and conference information.  Check it out at: www.publiclandlawreview.org

David Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, delivered the keynote at the 2013 Public Land Law Symposium.  The video, that speaks to Interior “Smart from the Start” planning can be found here: Keynote Video

Jack G. Connors

In 2009, the Department of the Interior acquired land so the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians could build a casino.  David Patchak owns land adjacent to the proposed casino and he filed a lawsuit alleging that the acquisition of the land violated federal law.  The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians and the federal government asserted the federal Quiet Title Act prohibits lawsuits like this one, which challenge the government’s ownership of Indian trust lands.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title Act did not apply because Patchak asserted the acquisition of the land was unlawful, not that he was the rightful owner of the land.

Full summary

William Fanning

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina determined the Nantahala National Forest properly amended the Forest Plan to prohibit and restrict vehicular access to the Upper Tellico Off Highway Vehicle System.  On summary judgment, the court found the Forest Service followed the appropriate procedures in deciding that erosion and sedimentation related to off-roading were imperiling the native brook trout.

Full summary

Ali Guio

In a case of first impression, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a trial court ruling on a motion to intervene as a matter of right.  In reviewing the Federal Claims Rule for intervention as of right, the court assessed the necessary showing of facts required by the intervenor to meet its burden of proving that adequate representation could not be made by an existing party.  The court found that the trial court properly denied Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations’ (“PCFFA”) motion because its litigation goals were the same as those of the government, and therefore the court’s conclusion would resolve the government’s contentions at the same time as it would the PCFFA similar and related arguments.

Full summary

Clare Hansen

This case reviews challenges to the Forest Service’s project-level compliance with the Forest Plan’s population viability requirements and environmental assessment for the Angora Project in the Lake Tahoe area.  The plaintiffs brought challenges under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), governed by the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Eastern District of California’s holding that NFMA did not require an assessment of the quantity and quality of habitat needed for the black-backed woodpecker, and the EA was not arbitrary and capricious pursuant to NEPA.

Full summary

Ada Montague

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kivalina follows the United States Supreme Court’s recent trend in denying the use of federal common law claims for redress of damages allegedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions.  Under the doctrine of displacement, the court concluded that the concerns raised by the Native Village of Kivalina are addressed under the Clean Air Act, precluding a federal common law nuisance claim.  However, the court noted that additional analysis by future federal courts may be appropriate in addressing whether damages are also displaced. The court did not preclude the possibility for redress under a state common law nuisance claim.  The court held that federal common law was not available to resolve the issues raised by Kivalina, and that only the legislative and the executive branches could provide a remedy.

Full summary