Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Guest KTMrad

POCATELLO, ID (June 15) -- In a unanimous decision, the SupremeCourt upheld a Utah District Court ruling dismissing claims broughtin 1999 by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and otheranti-access groups against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Thesuit targeted BLM's alleged inaction in managing off highway vehicle("OHV") access. SUWA's demands to immediately close nine popular OHVrecreation areas were rejected by the Utah District Court, but thatdecision was reversed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both theBLM and the OHV groups petitioned for review with the Supreme Court.The Court granted review and heard argument in March of this year."Needless to say, we're delighted", said Bill Dart, ExecutiveDirector of the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC). BRC led a coalition ofOHV enthusiast groups who successfully petitioned for defendant-intervenor status to aid BLM's defense of OHV management."We are pleased the Justices rejected the 'management throughlitigation' model that is popular with anti-access groups," Dartadded.The case before the Supreme Court turned on a fairly complexjurisdictional point. The Administrative Procedure Act allowslawsuits to compel nondiscretionary actions that have beenunlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The OHV groupsconvinced the District Court that SUWA's claims went far beyond thisstandard and were really attempting to dictate the everyday activityof the BLM. Thus, the case focused on the degree to which privateparties dissatisfied with government action can sue the agency underan alternate "failure to act" theory.Justice Antonin Scalia said SUWA's argument would insert the courtinto the day-to-day operations of the agency and "would divert BLM'senergies from other projects throughout the country that are in factmore pressing. While such a decree might please the environmentalplaintiffs in the present case, it would ultimately operate to thedetriment of sound environmental management.""We have raised these arguments with limited success since the mid1990's, and it is reassuring to see the Court has ultimately agreedwith our analysis," noted Paul Turcke, the Boise, Idaho lawyeracting as lead counsel for the OHV groups. "This case was neverabout limiting legitimate review of formal agency decisions, butwill clarify that disgruntled and well-funded special interestgroups cannot interfere with the ongoing administrative processsimply by claiming the agency is failing to act," Turcke concluded.According to BlueRibbon Coalition sources, there are numerous othercases at various levels of the federal court system that will beaffected by this ruling.The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national recreation group thatchampions responsible use of public and private lands, andencourages individual environmental stewardship. It represents over10,000 individual members and 1,100 organization and businessmembers, for a combined total of over 600,000 recreationistsnationwide. 1-800-258-3742. <http://www.sharetrails.org/>__________IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM BILL DART, BRC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:Greetings BlueRibbon Coalition members and supporters:It is an absolute pleasure to share the great news about the SupremeCourt ruling announced yesterday. In a rare 9 to 0 decision, theSupreme Court upheld a Utah District Court ruling dismissing claimsbrought by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and severalother anti-access groups in a lawsuit originally filed against theBureau of Land Management (BLM) in Utah.In October of 1999, Rainer Huck, president of the Utah Shared AccessAlliance (USA-ALL) contacted BRC with advance word that SUWA wasfiling a very large lawsuit against the BLM. Among other things,SUWA demanded the court ban all vehicle use on nearly 10 millionacres! The national significance of the lawsuit was immediatelyapparent. We had to move to intervene fast in order to prevent anout of court, "sweet heart" settlement.Soon after we were granted intervention, SUWA filed for a TemporaryRestraining Order, asking the court to immediately close ninepopular OHV areas. After five days of court testimony, the judgegranted a motion offered by BRC that dismissed most of SUWA'sclaims.BRC and USA-ALL argued SUWA's claims are about the sufficiency ofBLM's management of OHV use, and represents a "management throughlitigation" approach in an attempt to force the BLM into SUWA'spreferred management option, which is to close large areas tovehicle access. We also argued that effective solutions tomanagement challenges require a balance of resource needs and localhuman interests. This balance is best reached when the BLM involvesall public land visitors in its decisions.BRC and USA-ALL argued that responsible recreational use, even theOHV use occurring inside Wilderness Study Areas, is properlyoccurring through coordination and collaboration with state,counties and OHV user groups. The BLM noted that while there may besome illegal OHV use occurring, they refuted SUWA's allegationsabout the overall damage OHV use is causing. The areas have been thesubject of extensive analysis and management planning by BLM tomanage these areas responsibly.The Court granted BRC's motion to dismiss pertaining to the areasinvolved in the Preliminary Injection request, with prejudice, anddenied SUWA's Preliminary Injunction Motion as moot. The Court'sdecision denying SUWA's motion was immediately appealed to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. But that decision wasreversed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the BLM and theOHV groups petitioned for review with the Supreme Court. The Courtgranted review and heard argument in March of this year.I wanted to give that background because it's very likely the roleof BRC has been notably absent from reports you may have read inyour local newspaper. The obvious point is this; without effectivelegal representation, either millions of acres of Utah would beforever closed to vehicle access, or agencies of the federalgovernment would be held hostage to the whim any special interestthat can convince a judge to go along with their demands.The national significance of BRC's role in this case and thearguments can not be overerstated. The legal precedent SUWA soughtin this case would apply to all federal agencies. If SUWA and theirlitigation partners had prevailed, the management activities of allfederal agencies, not only the BLM, would be hostage to fringegroups of all manner and sort. It certainly would have paralyzedfederal land management allowing anti-access groups to further forcetheir agenda on land managers.Everyone at BRC is very proud of this victory. The point I wish toemphasize, however, is how much BRC appreciates and values yourmembership and financial support. Without your support, thesefederal judges would not hear any other perspective besides that ofSUWA's. Because of your involvement, these judges heard from thepeople who actually use the roads these anti access groups want toclose. Because you enabled BRC and USA-ALL to become involved, weprevented a future where the fringe SUWA-type groups would drive theday-to-day activities of agencies of the federal government.In conclusion, allow me to express our sincere thanks to all whohave faithfully and generously supported BlueRibbon.In sincere appreciation,Bill Dart,Executive Director, BlueRibbon Coalition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information