United States v. Board of County Commissioners
843 F.3d 1208
10th Cir.2016Background
- Otero County (New Mexico) adopted a resolution, relying on a 2001 New Mexico statute (NMSA §4-36-11), to mitigate wildfire risk on 69,000 acres of the Lincoln National Forest after consulting the Forest Service but intending to act even without Forest Service approval.
- The County’s plan included removing/harvesting live and dead trees, and treatment within Mexican Spotted Owl habitat.
- The U.S. Forest Service refused to approve the County’s plan.
- The United States sued in federal court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the state statute and county resolution were preempted by federal law and that Forest Service consent is required for cutting on national forest lands.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the United States, holding the Property Clause gives Congress plenary power over federal lands and that state/local measures conflicting with federal regulations must yield.
- The County appealed, arguing the Tenth Amendment reserves a power to remove imminent dangers on federal land when the federal government fails to act; it did not contest standing or ripeness or urge a construction to avoid conflict with federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law/regulation (under the Property Clause) preempts the state statute and county resolution authorizing cutting on national forest land without Forest Service approval | Federal Property Clause grants Congress power to regulate use of federal lands; 36 C.F.R. §261.6(a) requires Forest Service consent to cut timber on national forest; Supremacy Clause preempts conflicting state/local law | County contends Property Clause does not give "absolute plenary" power to displace state police powers; Tenth Amendment reserves right to abate imminent dangers when federal government fails to act | Held for United States: Property Clause supports broad federal authority over federal lands; state/local laws conflicting with federal law must yield under the Supremacy Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (explaining Property Clause grants Congress plenary power over federal lands and that state laws must yield when they conflict)
- Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (applying Kleppe; holding Tenth Amendment does not preserve state authority to manage wildlife on federal land where federal law governs)
- Cal. Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (recognizing Congress’ plenary power over federal land)
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (preemption analysis focuses on whether simultaneous enforcement would impair federal superintendence, not on similarity of purposes)