United States v. Backlund
689 F.3d 986
9th Cir.2012Background
- Forest Service regulates residency on National Forest System lands when mining operations are involved.
- Defendants Backlund and Everist were convicted under 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) for unlawfully maintaining residences on mining claims.
- Forest Service determinations found residency not reasonably incident to mining; neither had a special use authorization.
- Defendants argued the Forest Service lacked authority over residency on mining claims and that § 261.10(b) was vague.
- Court held the Forest Service has authority to regulate residency on bona fide mining claims and § 261.10(b) is consistent with mining laws; APA exhaustion rules govern judicial review.
- Court addressed whether Backlund and Everist could obtain judicial review of agency determinations in a criminal proceeding and remanded accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to regulate residence on mining claims | Backlund/Everist argue FS cannot regulate residency on mining claims | Backlund/Everist contend residency is not subject to § 261.10(b) | FS may regulate residency on mining claims and § 261.10(b) is valid |
| Vagueness of § 261.10(b) | § 261.10(b) is void for vagueness under due process | Regulations provide notice and guidance; actual notice to defendants existed | § 261.10(b) not unconstitutionally vague |
| APA exhaustion and review in criminal cases | Backlund may seek APA review in criminal proceeding; Everist did not exhaust | Administrative remedies must be exhausted; collateral review is limited | APA allows judicial review either via direct APA action or in a criminal proceeding; exhaustion rules applied to each defendant |
| Collateral attack in criminal case | Defendants may introduce agency-review evidence as affirmative defenses | Backlund allowed APA challenge; Everist barred due to lack of exhaustion; court delineates two review paths | |
| Remand vs. affirmation | N/A | N/A | Everist’s conviction affirmed; Backlund’s conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296 (9th Cir.1981) (mining regs may limit residency to protect surface resources)
- Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir.1989) (agency action may be limited to not endangering mining operations; exhaustion rule)
- Brunskill, 792 F.2d 938 (9th Cir.1986) (residential structures on mining claims are significant surface disturbances)
- Nogueira, 403 F.2d 816 (9th Cir.1968) (permanent residence not reasonably related to mining authorized by § 612)
- Richardson, 599 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.1979) (Forest Service may prohibit uses not reasonably necessary to mining)
- Coleman v. United States, 363 F.2d 190 (9th Cir.1966) (APA review may be available in civil ejectment; not limited to exclusive route)