Public Lands for the People, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
697 F.3d 1192
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Forest Service limited motor vehicle use in the Eldorado National Forest to designated roads (2008 Decision), constraining access for miners and prospectors.
- FEIS acknowledged that restrictions could reduce access for prospecting, potentially affecting discovery of mineral resources.
- Miners (seven individuals and Public Lands for the People, Inc.) challenged the 2008 Decision, claiming lack of authority and seeking continued motor vehicle access to mining claims.
- District court dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiffs appealed challenging both standing and the scope of Forest Service authority.
- Court held the Miners have standing due to injuries from road closures affecting access to mining claims; the injuries are traceable to the 2008 Decision and redressable by relief striking down the access restriction.
- Court concluded the Forest Service had authority to restrict motor vehicle access and that roads closed by the 2008 Decision were not “public roads” under 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a); the challenged regulatory interpretation was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Miners: injuries in fact from road closures suffice | Government: standing not established | Miners have standing |
| Forest Service authority over motor vehicle access | Miners: authority to restrict access unsupported | Forest Service has broad statutory authority | Forest Service acted within authority |
| Effect of 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a) public roads exception | Exception exists; pre-authorization not required on public roads | Exception not ripe; roads may not be public roads | § 228.4(a) does not create a workable exception; roads closed by 2008 Decision were not “public roads” for the exception |
| Ripeness of regulatory interpretation | Not applicable to alter result; court not treating ripeness as fatal to challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (injury-in-fact and imminence requirements for standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. United States Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing when forest-service actions affect tribal rights and welfare)
- Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1994) (Secretary may regulate mining-related activity to protect national forests)
- United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1981) (Secretary may regulate access to mining areas to preserve forest resources)
- United States v. Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1989) (regulation may restrict conduct incidental to mining; permissible)