Cascadia Wildlands v. Dept. of State Lands, 365 Or. 750

At statehood Congress granted sections (16 & 36) or substitutes to Oregon “for the use of schools”; those lands are held in trust as common school lands.
Article VIII, §5 (1857) created a board (now the State Land Board) “for the sale of school, and university lands,” but stated the board’s powers and duties “shall be such as may be prescribed by law.”
In 1913 Oregon exchanged scattered school parcels for contiguous national-forest land to form the Elliott State Forest and enacted a 50‑year prohibition on selling forest lands granted for a state forest; in 1957 the legislature enacted ORS 530.450 to withdraw those lands from sale indefinitely.
In 2014 ODSL (administrative arm of the Land Board) contracted to sell the East Hakki Ridge parcel of the Elliott to Seneca Jones; Cascadia Wildlands sued claiming ORS 530.450 barred the sale.
The circuit court dismissed for lack of standing; the Court of Appeals reversed, held Cascadia had standing, and ruled ORS 530.450 constitutional and that the sale violated that statute.
The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: ORS 530.450 is constitutional (not inconsistent with Article VIII, §5) and does not violate separation of powers; it reversed the circuit court and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue to set aside the sale	Cascadia: has organizational and public‑interest standing to challenge statutory violation	ODSL/Seneca: petitioners lack standing	Court of Appeals and Supreme Court: petitioners have standing (COA affirmed)
Whether ORS 530.450 conflicts with Article VIII, §5 (1857 & as amended)	ODSL/Seneca: §5 vests constitutional power in Land Board to sell school lands; legislature may not permanently prohibit sale — statute void	Cascadia: §5 expressly permits the legislature to prescribe the board’s powers and duties; statute is a lawful legislative prescription	Held: ORS 530.450 is consistent with Article VIII, §5; legislature may define the Land Board’s powers and duties; statute not void
Whether ORS 530.450 violates separation of powers by usurping/excessively burdening Land Board’s core function	ODSL/Seneca: statute unduly burdens/exercises executive function to maximize net revenue from school lands	Cascadia: statute is a permissible legislative direction of how the board exercises its duties and does not vest sale power in legislature	Held: No separation‑of‑powers violation; §5 subjects the board’s functions to legislative direction and the statute does not usurp the board’s duties

Robertson v. Low, 44 Or 587 (legislature governs and controls Land Board’s functions)
State Land Board v. Lee, 84 Or 431 (Land Board exists to serve the state; powers subject to legislative prescription)
State v. Warner Valley Stock Co., 56 Or 283 (Board limited to powers conferred by statute; acts without statutory authority are void)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Holman, 142 Or 339 (constitutional language means powers and duties are as prescribed by law)
Kubli v. Martin, 5 Or 436 (legislature may direct board’s action but may not assume the board’s duties)
Johnson v. Dept. of Revenue, 292 Or 373 (1968 amendments continued to permit legislative determination of land/fund uses; board must seek greatest benefit subject to law)
United States v. Morrison, 240 U.S. 192 (federal authority for selecting lands in lieu of unavailable sections)
Andrus v. Utah, 446 U.S. 500 (historical context of federal land grants to new states for schools)
State ex rel. Metropolitan Public Defender v. Courtney, 335 Or 236 (standard for identifying undue burden/usurpation under separation of powers)