Joshua Bohmker v. State of Oregon
903 F.3d 1029
9th Cir.2018Background
- Oregon enacted Senate Bill 3 (2017) to protect threatened anadromous salmonids and Pacific lamprey by barring motorized in‑stream placer mining in waters designated as essential indigenous anadromous salmonid habitat; the law applies statewide, including on federal lands.
- Plaintiffs are suction‑dredge miners holding unpatented mining claims on federal land in Oregon; they sued, arguing the state restriction is preempted by federal mining and federal land‑management laws and sought injunctive/declaratory relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Oregon; plaintiffs appealed. The parties agreed the appeal should be treated as a challenge to SB 3 (the later statute) and the Ninth Circuit heard the case.
- The Ninth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that NFMA and FLPMA preempt the extension of state land‑use plans onto unpatented federal mining claims, and analyzed whether SB 3 is a preempted land‑use plan or a permissible state environmental regulation.
- The panel held SB 3 is an environmental regulation (not a land‑use planning measure), is reasonably tailored to protect fish habitat, and therefore is not field‑ or conflict‑preempted by federal law; the court affirmed summary judgment for Oregon.
- Judge N.R. Smith dissented, contending NFMA/FLPMA occupy the field of federal land‑use planning and that SB 3, by banning a particular use in designated tracts without specifying an environmental standard, is preempted; he also argued an as‑applied «commercial impracticability» test could show the law operates as a de facto ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 3 is field‑preempted as a state land‑use planning law | SB 3 is a land‑use plan because it prohibits motorized mining uses in designated zones | SB 3 is an environmental regulation aimed at protecting fish habitat, not an extension of state land‑use planning onto federal land | Held: SB 3 is an environmental regulation, not state land‑use planning; not field‑preempted (assuming NFMA/FLPMA preempt state land‑use plans) |
| Whether SB 3 is conflict‑preempted because it is “prohibitory” rather than regulatory | A prohibition on a mining method is an obstacle to Congress’s goal of encouraging mining; thus SB 3 is preempted | Reasonable prohibitions targeting methods/locations to protect the environment are consistent with federal mining and land‑management objectives | Held: Not conflict‑preempted; categorical ‘‘prohibitory vs regulatory’’ distinction rejected; statute permissible if it does not frustrate federal objectives |
| Whether SB 3 is unreasonable environmental regulation (so as to be preempted) | SB 3 is pretextual or overbroad and unduly interferes with mining rights | SB 3 is tailored to protect essential habitat and is a reasonable state environmental measure supplementing federal law | Held: SB 3 is a reasonable environmental regulation and does not unduly interfere with federal mining purposes |
| Whether genuine factual disputes (e.g., commercial practicability) preclude summary judgment | Plaintiffs contended SB 3 makes mining commercially impracticable on affected claims (as‑applied challenge) | Defendants argued preemption is a legal question and SB 3 remains valid as a matter of law; plaintiffs waived a pure profitability argument | Held: Court treated preemption as a question of law; affirmed summary judgment for Oregon; dissent argued as‑applied impracticability claim raised triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987) (distinguishes state environmental regulation from state land‑use planning; ‘‘reasonable state environmental regulation is not pre‑empted’’)
- South Dakota Mining Ass’n v. Lawrence County, 155 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 1998) (county ordinance that functioned as de facto ban on mining was preempted as conflicting with federal mining objectives)
- Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1994) (discusses possessory interests of unpatented claims and that environmental regulation will affect claim profitability)
- United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1981) (Secretary of Agriculture may impose reasonable regulations on mining uses in national forests)
- United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 1999) (Forest Service may regulate use of national forest lands by claim holders so long as regulations are reasonable and do not impermissibly encroach on mining uses)
- People v. Rinehart, 377 P.3d 818 (Cal. 2016) (California Supreme Court upheld state prohibition on suction‑dredge mining as not preempted; consistent with allowing state restrictions on particular mining techniques)