288 A.3d 346
Me.2022Background
- The Bureau of Parks and Lands leased portions of Johnson Mountain and West Forks Plantation to CMP for the NECEC transmission project: a 2014 lease later superseded by a 2020 "Amended and Restated" lease covering 32.39 acres (0.9 miles), about 2.6% of the combined 1,241-acre tracts.
- Plaintiffs (including public-land users and NRCM) challenged the leases as ultra vires under Article IX, §23 of the Maine Constitution, arguing the leases would "reduce or substantially alter" designated public reserved lands and therefore required a two-thirds legislative vote.
- The Superior Court vacated the lease, held the Bureau must make a "substantial alteration" determination via a public administrative (adjudicatory) process, and denied remand; the Bureau and CMP appealed; plaintiffs cross‑appealed.
- After trial court judgment, a voter-initiated law (Nov. 2021) retroactively required two-thirds legislative approval for transmission-line leases and deemed such lines to substantially alter designated land; plaintiffs moved to dismiss appeals as moot.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held the Initiative may not be applied retroactively to invalidate the 2020 lease because doing so would violate the federal Contract Clause (a substantial, unforeseeable impairment of the lease), denied mootness, ruled the Bureau was not required by statute or the Constitution to follow an adjudicatory administrative process before granting the lease, and concluded on the record that the 2020 lease did not substantially alter the public reserved lands; it vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for the Bureau and CMP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does the 2021 citizen Initiative retroactively invalidate the 2020 lease? | Black: Initiative applies retroactively and therefore moots appeals by voiding the lease. | Bureau/CMP: Retroactive application would impair contractual obligations and cannot apply to existing lease. | Held: Retroactive application to the lease violates the U.S. Contract Clause (substantial, unforeseeable impairment); Initiative does not moot appeals. |
| 2) Did Article IX, §23 or implementing statutes require the Bureau to use a public administrative (adjudicatory) process before granting the lease? | Black: Bureau must make a formal public adjudicatory determination that lease would not substantially alter the lands. | Bureau/CMP: Legislature delegated broad leasing authority; no statute or constitutional text requires an adjudicatory hearing or formal findings. | Held: No statutory or constitutional requirement for an adjudicatory process for such leases; Bureau need not follow formal administrative hearing procedures. |
| 3) What is the proper scope of judicial review and do plaintiffs have standing? | Black: Declaratory relief appropriate; trial court review of procedure and substance necessary. | Bureau/CMP: Rule 80C (administrative review) is the proper vehicle; some claims duplicative. | Held: Rule 80C/Maine APA review is proper for the 2020 lease; several plaintiffs (including users) and NRCM have standing; ultra vires claims limited to whether lease exceeded statutory/constitutional authority. |
| 4) Did the 2020 lease "substantially alter" the public reserved lands (ultra vires)? | Black: Lease substantially alters uses and must have had legislative approval. | Bureau/CMP: Lease affects only a small portion (2.6%), with mitigation and management consistent with multiple-use goals; within Bureau authority. | Held: On the record, the lease does not substantially alter the lands or frustrate essential multiple-use purposes; Bureau acted within authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Tr. Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) (Contract Clause analysis and limits on state impairment of contracts)
- Energy Rsrvs. Grp., Inc. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (1983) (three-step test: substantial impairment, public purpose, and reasonable means)
- Citizens Against Rent Control/Coal. for Fair Hous. v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) (voter initiatives subject to constitutional limits)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (courts may require agencies to explain nonadjudicatory decisions for meaningful review)
- Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham, 868 A.2d 172 (Me. 2005) (Rule 80B/80C exclusivity and narrowness of ultra vires exception)
- Fitzgerald v. Baxter State Park Authority, 385 A.2d 189 (Me. 1978) (standing for users of public land to challenge agency action)
- Anderson v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 985 A.2d 501 (Me. 2009) (standard of review for Rule 80C administrative appeals)