Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States
805 F.3d 1049
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Barlow & Haun owned 26 preexisting oil and gas leases in Wyoming’s mechanically mineable trona area (MMTA); BLM suspended oil and gas leasing/development in the MMTA to protect trona mining and miner safety.
- Barlow sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Nov. 2008), alleging (1) a Fifth Amendment taking and (2) breach of the leases (express terms and implied covenant). TriContinental, NOWIO‑S, and NOWIO‑V joined as plaintiffs.
- The Court of Federal Claims (post-trial) found: Barlow’s breach claim failed on the merits (no repudiation; alleged new conditions were covered by existing regulations/lease terms); Barlow’s takings claim was unripe because no APD was filed; and TriContinental, NOWIO‑S, NOWIO‑V lacked privity/standing to sue for breach.
- Key factual findings credited by the trial court: BLM repeatedly stated it would recognize valid existing rights; BLM retained discretion to consider/approve APDs in the MMTA; BLM had approved APDs for another company (Saurus) despite the suspension.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, reviewing legal issues de novo and deferring to trial-court factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (repudiation/new terms) | Barlow: indefinite suspension and imposition of new conditions eliminated the leases’ value and altered contract terms. | U.S./BLM: RMPs/EIS expressly recognize existing rights; regulations already authorize safety conditions; no distinct/unqualified refusal to perform. | Affirmed for defendant — no repudiation; conditions fall within existing lease/regulatory framework. |
| Takings (regulatory taking) | Barlow: RMP/EIS and suspension effectively prohibit development; filing an APD would be futile, so ripeness excused. | U.S./BLM: No final, property‑specific denial; BLM retained discretion to approve APDs; must seek final agency decision. | Affirmed for defendant — takings claim unripe because Barlow did not submit an APD and agency discretion remained. |
| Standing/privity for co‑plaintiffs | Appellants: TriContinental, NOWIO‑S, NOWIO‑V had operating/ownership rights and should be joined. | U.S.: Only Barlow held title/privity with United States; others lack contractual privity to sue for breach. | Affirmed for defendant — TriContinental, NOWIO‑S, NOWIO‑V lack privity and were properly dismissed. |
| Scope of regulatory authority invoked by plaintiff | Barlow: Regulations did not contemplate trona‑specific miner safety conditions; new restrictions exceed lease/regulatory authority. | U.S.: Existing regulations require protection of life/property and safe operations; no need for mineral‑specific language. | Affirmed for defendant — safety conditions fall within preexisting regulatory authority; not a contract breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (establishing repudiation/total breach principles in government leases)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (regulatory takings where all economically beneficial use is deprived)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (ripeness: need for final agency decision or clear lack of agency discretion)
- Washoe County v. United States, 319 F.3d 1320 (ripeness exception where no reasonable additional administrative step exists)
- Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 444 F.3d 1309 (futility doctrine for ripeness when permitting process would be pointless)