Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n

Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n

Opinion

 [*875]  [***707]  [**3181]    JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

 In this case we must decide whether respondent, the National Wildlife Federation  [**3182]  (hereinafter respondent), is a proper party to challenge actions of the Federal Government relating to certain public lands.

 [***708]  I

Respondent filed this action in 1985 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against petitioners the United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of  [****9]  the Interior, and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the Department. In its amended complaint, respondent alleged that petitioners had violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 90 Stat. 2744, 43 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq. (1982 ed.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. § 4321 et seq., and § 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706, in the course of administering what the complaint called the "land withdrawal review program" of the BLM. Some background information concerning that program is necessary to an understanding of this dispute.

In various enactments, Congress empowered United States citizens to acquire title to, and rights in, vast portions of federally owned land. See, e. g., Rev. Stat. § 2319, 30 U. S. C. § 22 et seq. (Mining Law of 1872); 41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U. S. C. § 181 et seq. (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920). Congress also provided means, however, for the Executive to remove public lands from the operation of these statutes. The Pickett Act, 36 Stat. 847, 43 U. S. C. § 141 (1970 ed.), repealed, 90 Stat. 2792 (1976), authorized  [****10]  the President "at any time in his discretion, temporarily [to] withdraw from settlement, location, sale, or entry any of the  [*876]  public lands of the United States . . . and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes . . . ." Acting under this and under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 315f, which gave the Secretary of the Interior authority to "classify" public lands as suitable for either disposal or federal retention and management, President Franklin Roosevelt withdrew all unreserved public land from disposal until such time as they were classified. Exec. Order No. 6910, Nov. 26, 1934; Exec. Order No. 6964, Feb. 5, 1935. In 1936, Congress amended § 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior "to examine and classify any lands" withdrawn by these orders and by other authority as "more valuable or suitable" for other uses "and to open such lands to entry, selection, or location for disposal in accordance with such classification under applicable public-land laws." 49 Stat. 1976, 43 U. S. C. § 315f (1982 ed.). The amendment also directed that "such lands shall not  [****11]  be subject to disposition, settlement, or occupation until after the same have been classified and opened to entry." Ibid. The 1964 classification and multiple use Act, 78 Stat. 986, 43 U. S. C. §§ 1411-1418 (1970 ed.) (expired 1970), gave the Secretary further authority to classify lands for the purpose of either disposal or retention by the Federal Government.

Management of the public lands under these various laws became chaotic. The Public Land Law Review Commission, established by Congress in 1964 to study the matter, 78 Stat. 982, determined in 1970  [***709]  that "virtually all" of the country's public domain, see Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land 52 (1970) -- about one-third of the land within the United States, see id., at 19 -- had been withdrawn or classified for retention; that it was difficult to determine "the extent of existing Executive withdrawals and the degree to which withdrawals overlap each other," id., at 52; and that there were inadequate records to show the purposes  [*877]  of withdrawals and the permissible public uses. Ibid. Accordingly, it recommended that "Congress should provide for a careful review of (1) all Executive  [****12]  withdrawals and reservations, and (2) BLM retention and disposal classifications under the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964." Ibid.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.