Chittenden v. United States
663 F. App'x 934
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Chittenden and Hall hold unpatented lode mining claims (Roye Sum and Dolliegeek) in Tahoe National Forest. Forest Service installed bat-friendly gates on Roye Sum shaft and portal after biologists found bats.
- Gates: shaft gate of steel bars plus a 36-inch culvert; portal gate with vertical bars and seven removable horizontal bars. Forest Service provided a key to remove horizontals.
- Claimants sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $50 million, alleging a Fifth Amendment uncompensated taking and other claims; the CFC granted summary judgment for the United States.
- On appeal, the court assumed (for purposes of takings analysis) the claims are valid unpatented mining claims but noted claimants’ rights are subject to federal regulation of surface use.
- Court considered whether the gates constituted a permanent physical occupation or denied meaningful access to the mining claims under Fifth Amendment takings doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimants have a cognizable property interest for takings analysis | Claimants contend their unpatented mining claims create protected property interests under the Fifth Amendment | Government concedes claimants’ possessory interest for purposes of analysis but notes it is subject to regulatory limitations | Court assumed validity for analysis and proceeded to takings issues |
| Whether the bat gates are a "permanent physical occupation" requiring compensation | Gates physically occupy mine entrances and thus are an authorized permanent occupation under Loretto | Because the United States holds fee title and claimants hold use-limited unpatented claims, the small, removable, and gate-like installations do not constitute a Loretto-type occupation | Court held the gates are not a compensable permanent physical occupation under the cited authority |
| Whether the gates deny "meaningful access" to the claims (physical taking) | Gates prevent use of modern/mining machinery and ordinary mining, depriving claimants of all economic use | Claimants’ access rights are limited by Forest Service regulations (no significant surface disturbance absent notice of intent); gates do not prevent underground operations that comply with those limits | Court held gates do not deny meaningful access for the permissible activities and thus no taking occurred |
| Whether Forest Service authority to install gates is relevant to takings claim | Claimants argue gates were unauthorized so installation was unlawful and supports taking claim | Government argues takings claim must assume action was lawful; challenges to authority are separate and not relevant in Tucker Act takings suit | Court treated authority as conceded for takings analysis and rejected authority-based arguments as irrelevant to the takings determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunkes v. United States, 78 F.3d 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (unpatented mining claims confer possessory but use-limited interests).
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (permanent physical occupation by government is a categorical taking).
- Washoe Cty. v. United States, 319 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (denial of meaningful access can constitute a physical taking).
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (federal ownership of fee confers broad regulatory power over public lands).
- Maritrans Inc. v. United States, 342 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (steps for evaluating takings: property interest then whether taking occurred).