The Wilderness Soc. v. Kane County, Utah
632 F.3d 1162
10th Cir.2011Background
- TWS challenged Kane County's RS 2477 rights-of-way over lands managed by BLM and NPS, seeking preemption-based relief under the Supremacy Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment for TWS, enjoining Kane County from open-road actions unless Kane County proves RS 2477 rights via a quiet title action.
- Kane County enacted 2005-03 opening certain routes to OHV use; later rescinded it in 2006 but maintained signage indicating routes were open.
- Kane County later pursued a separate quiet title action and continued to post county road-number signs on claimed RS 2477 rights of way inside federal lands.
- The en banc court reversed on prudential standing, vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of TWS, and remanded to dismiss, finding TWS lacked prudential standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prudential standing bars TWS | TWS asserts independent harms and a valid Supremacy Clause claim. | Kane County contends TWS lacks third-party prudential standing to vindicate federal interests. | Yes; prudential standing bars TWS |
| Whether the Supremacy Clause claim is redressable | Relief to stop nonconforming actions would redress injuries to recreation/aesthetics. | Any redress would require redressing federal rights; no redressable county action remains. | No redressable Supremacy Clause relief |
| Whether mootness forestalls jurisdiction | Defunct ordinance and decals may still support live challenges to road-signs. | Post-repeal actions are moot; no ongoing violation exists. | Moot as to most issues; limited live dispute remains |
| Whether the district court erred by not requiring a quiet title action | No need for quiet-title action to enjoin federal-law conflicts with management plans. | QTA is the exclusive means to challenge United States title; district court was correct to require it for property claims. | QTA requirement controls; property rights not properly before en banc court |
Key Cases Cited
- Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1983) (QTA is the exclusive means to challenge U.S. title)
- Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1983) (Supremacy Clause jurisdiction; private rights not implied)
- Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2004) (Supremacy Clause preemption claims may proceed without private rights)
- Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742 (10th Cir. 2010) (Supremacy Clause claims can be pursued without private federal rights)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) ( Prudential standing limits on third-party claims)
- Montanans for Multiple Use v. Barbouletos, 568 F.3d 225 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (QTA-like restrictions; challenges to federal land decisions must follow QTA)
- Shawnee Trail Conservancy v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 222 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000) (Non-QTA challenges to federal land claims are improper)