81 F.4th 809
8th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiffs EEE Minerals, LLC and Suzanne Vohs (trustee) are successors to the Vohs family who in 1957 conveyed surface acreage to the United States for the Garrison Dam project but reserved oil and gas interests subject to U.S. rights to flood and submerge the land.
- North Dakota claims mineral ownership under the equal-footing doctrine and, relying on Corps of Engineers surveys, determined a historical ordinary high water mark for the Missouri River as it existed at dam closure.
- The North Dakota legislature (2017) enacted a statute defining State mineral ownership as limited to the historical riverbed channel up to the ordinary high water mark and adopted a modified Corps survey as presumptive boundary.
- Plaintiffs leased the reserved minerals and sued the State, the Board of University and School Lands, and the Board’s Commissioner in federal court, alleging (1) the Flood Control Act preempts the state statute and (2) the State effected an uncompensated Fifth Amendment taking.
- The district court dismissed: holding no preemption, takings claims for money or retrospective relief were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and plaintiffs’ requested equitable relief and individual-capacity damages were unavailable; the panel affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Flood Control Act impliedly preempts North Dakota’s statute defining historical riverbed/mineral ownership | Flood Control Act and the 1957 warranty deed embody federal purposes; state law that alters reserved mineral interests frustrates federal objectives | State property-law determination of the high-water mark does not conflict with or impede federal acquisition or the Corps’ ability to operate the reservoir | No preemption — state determination of the high-water mark does not obstruct the Flood Control Act or federal inundation rights |
| Whether the State’s claim to minerals effected a Fifth Amendment taking actionable in federal court | State’s assertion of mineral title extinguished plaintiffs’ reserved mineral rights without just compensation | Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against the State in federal court; state courts remain open | Takings claim for damages/injunctive relief barred in federal court by sovereign immunity |
| Whether plaintiffs can obtain equitable relief under Ex parte Young to circumvent sovereign immunity | If monetary relief is barred, an injunction can compel compensation or restore rights | The requested injunction is retrospective in effect (seeking redress for past taking) and an adequate state-court remedy exists | Ex parte Young relief denied — claim is effectively retrospective and barred in federal court |
| Whether plaintiffs may seek money damages from the Commissioner in his individual capacity or amend to add such a claim | Plaintiffs could pursue money damages against the Commissioner personally | The Commissioner was sued only in his official capacity; no unambiguous individual-capacity pleading; belated amendment untimely and likely futile | Damages against Commissioner unavailable; official-capacity suit only and amendment rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (preemption/conflict standard)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (federal-law obstacle preemption test)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claim accrues on taking; municipal suits in federal court)
- Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106 (1994) (Eleventh Amendment can bar federal suits even where federal constitutional right is self-executing)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (state is real party in interest; sovereign immunity principles)
- Va. Office for Prot. & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011) (states entered Union retaining sovereign immunity)
- Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (1977) (equal-footing doctrine; state title to riverbeds to the ordinary high-water mark)
- Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894) (state title principles for navigable waters at statehood)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (limits on equitable relief when legal remedy exists)
- Sorum v. State, 947 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 2020) (North Dakota decision addressing historical high-water mark and Corps survey)