People v. Rinehart, 1 Cal. 5th 652

Background

Rinehart was charged and convicted in Plumas County for possession and unpermitted use of a suction dredge while working an unpatented placer claim on federal land; he appealed claiming federal preemption.
California had imposed a temporary moratorium (since 2009, later extended) on suction dredging permits citing harms to fish, water quality, and public health; the Department completed environmental review but left the moratorium in place.
Rinehart argued the Mining Law of 1872 and 30 U.S.C. § 612 preempt California’s suction-dredge restrictions because miners hold federal rights to mine on public land and state limits make mining commercially impracticable.
The trial court sustained the People’s demurrer to the preemption defense, excluded Rinehart’s evidence, convicted him after a stipulated-facts bench trial, and sentenced him to probation.
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding Rinehart had colorable preemption arguments and factual disputes the trial court should have allowed; the California Supreme Court granted review.
The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding the state moratorium is not preempted: federal mining statutes protect miners’ property interests but do not immunize mining from state police-power environmental regulation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether California’s suction-dredge moratorium is preempted by the Mining Law of 1872	The state may regulate methods to protect water/fish; no federal intent to preempt such regulation	1872 Act creates federal right to mine on public land that precludes state rules that make mining impracticable	No preemption: 1872 secures possessory/title interests but does not displace state police powers over environmental regulation
Whether 30 U.S.C. § 612(b) preempts state measures restricting mining methods	§612 addresses surface-use relations among federal actors and miners, not a bar to state police-power regulation	§612’s “not to materially interfere” language prevents state rules that materially interfere with mining	No preemption: §612 limits federal surface uses; it does not nullify state environmental regulation
Whether historical practice (e.g., hydraulic mining injunctions) shows Congress intended sweeping mining immunity	State and federal history supports strong state role protecting water/fish; Congress acquiesced to state injunctions historically	Rinehart argues historical cases support a federal right to mine free of conflicting state limits	History (Woodruff/hydraulic mining) supports that Congress did not intend to preempt state restrictions on destructive methods
Standard for obstacle preemption and burden of proof	States may be preempted only where federal objectives would be frustrated; presumption against preemption in traditional state fields	Rinehart must show clear congressional purpose and that state law frustrates it	Rinehart failed to meet the demanding obstacle-preemption standard; congressional purpose does not require displacement of California’s moratorium

Key Cases Cited

Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n, 480 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1987) (states may impose environmental permit requirements on mining on federal land; facial preemption rejected)
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1985) (mining law grants prospectors rights of possession subject to local and federal rules)
Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1976) (property clause does not automatically displace state law; Congress must act affirmatively)
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1941) (obstacle preemption bars state law that frustrates federal purposes)
United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (U.S. 1968) (mining statutes concern allocation of real property interests)
Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co., 18 F. 753 (C.C.D. Cal. 1884) (state nuisance injunctions effectively halted hydraulic mining; court rejected claim of federal preemption)
United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 1999) (Forest Service and federal agencies may impose reasonable regulations on mining claims that do not impermissibly encroach on bona fide mining uses)