collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Judge Says States Can't Enact Laws to Prevent Sale of Fed Lands 2 Private Entity  (Read 2169 times)

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 10634
U.S. judge strikes down California law restricting federal land sales
NOVEMBER 2, 2018 / 12:39 PM / 4 DAYS AGO

(Reuters) - A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a California law that restricted the U.S. government’s ability to sell or transfer federal land in the state to private entities, handing a victory to the Trump administration.

In a decision on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Shubb in Sacramento, said the law discriminated against land purchasers who deal with the United States.

He said the law violated the so-called doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which governs conflicts between state and federal laws, and issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

The U.S. Department of Justice in April sued California over the law, known as Senate Bill 50, which gave the California State Lands Commission a right of first refusal over many land transfers.

Supporters hoped the law would stop the Trump administration from selling land that could later be used for oil drilling, mining or property development.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the law in October 2017. It took effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

A spokeswoman for the State Lands Commission declined on Friday to comment on the decision, and said the agency has not decided whether to appeal.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the decision a “firm rejection” of California’s “stunning assertion of constitutional power” to dictate how and when the federal government can sell its own land.

He also said federal judges in recent months have voided two other California laws “designed to frustrate federal law,” and said that the trend was “concerning.”

California is one of many Democratic-controlled or Democratic-leaning states that have passed laws to counteract policies endorsed by President Donald Trump, a Republican, and his administration.

The federal government owns about 46 million acres in the state, or 46 percent of California’s total acreage, according to the Congressional Research Service, and Shubb’s decision could allow it to sell more federal land there.

Shubb said Senate Bill 50 illegally impeded the government’s ability to manage its land through such agencies as the National Park Service, National Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management.

He also said California did not show that its law was needed to protect “sensitive” and “unique” lands.

“Rather, SB 50 uncritically uses federal administrative and institutional categories to target the federal government and those with whom it deals for regulation,” Shubb wrote.

Shubb was appointed to the bench in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.

The case is U.S. v California et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, No. 18-00721.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-california-land/u-s-judge-strikes-down-california-law-restricting-federal-land-sales-idUSKCN1N72EL

Offline npaull

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1087
That sucks. Trump and his a*hole cronies want to sell off federal land for profit. One step closer to being able to do it. Access is everything for hunting. The assault on public land continues.

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 4457
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
That sucks. Trump and his a*hole cronies want to sell off federal land for profit. One step closer to being able to do it. Access is everything for hunting. The assault on public land continues.
yep- pretty much.

Offline KopperBuck

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 1910
  • Location: GRV
I'm usually not that guy, but I'm not sure the states should be telling the feds what to do, anymore than the feds telling the states what to do with their ground. I get the access problem, but I don't think the idea at it's basic level is bad.

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39203
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
If the Democrats in California are for something, that tells me I should be against it.

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 10634
If the Democrats in California are for something, that tells me I should be against it.
Then don't complain if federal land in WA is sold to Weyerhauser/others and a gate is put up with access permit requirements.

I vote R, but I don't like the party's goal of eliminating federal lands (as does Ryan Zinke which is why he backed out of the R National Convention in 2016.)

https://billingsgazette.com/news/local/zinke-resigns-delegate-post-over-public-lands-disagreement-still-will/article_8109f084-d199-50dd-b223-9fd3557a738d.html

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39203
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Very unlikely that Federal public lands will all be sold off. We have much bigger problems than that, if Democrats ever get what they want.

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 10634
Very unlikely that Federal public lands will all be sold off. We have much bigger problems than that, if Democrats ever get what they want.
You're right I don't think it will "all" be sold off. But I'll be pretty pisssed if my favorite USFS or BLM areas are taken out of federal domain. I don't care if it's 150 acres or 150,000 acres. None of it should be sold simply because the people in DC at the time want to get rid of it.

I've seen tons of small little WA DNR parcels that had great hunting opportunities sold to private entities or county parks. Did all DNR in WA get sold off no, but guess what people still lost opportunities.

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 25038
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Make it Rain!
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
This is an obvious case of action with no regards to consequences and a overreaction because it is the only feasible solution.

Perhaps if multipal use was still the overriding goal of federal land we wouldn't be in this situation.

I personally dont want the land sold. I do see the logic in it if the feds cant log, mine or create a surplus from the holdings like they have in the past.

Just like many things Trump does he makes an outrageous claim to get folks to the bargaining table.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself. 

Confucius

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 4457
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
We have much bigger problems than that, if Democrats ever get what they want.
So we should ignore the problems you consider "smaller" ?

There are a whole host of issues with public lands that impact people at different levels.  For me, Federal Land management (and mismanagement) is a very big deal and worthy of attention.  To me, it's not a partisan issue.  If either side wants to dispose of public holdings I will be paying close attention.

Offline Stein

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 12955
  • Location: Arlington
I don't think the states should dictate what the feds do with their land anymore than any other private landowner.  I also think the feds shouldn't sell it off, but those are two different problems.

At the end of the day, it is the states with the poor record of holding onto public land.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Sauk Unit Youth Elk Tips by Kales15
[Today at 02:10:11 PM]


1993 Merc issues getting up on plane by Threewolves
[Today at 01:11:29 PM]


3 pintails by metlhead
[Today at 12:35:03 PM]


Unit 364 Archery Tag by buglebuster
[Today at 12:16:59 PM]


In the background by zwickeyman
[Today at 12:10:13 PM]


A. Cole Lockback in AEB-L and Micarta by A. Cole
[Today at 09:15:34 AM]


Willapa Hills 1 Bear by hunter399
[Today at 08:24:48 AM]


Bearpaw Outfitters Annual July 4th Hunt Sale by Threewolves
[Today at 06:35:57 AM]


Sockeye Numbers by Southpole
[Yesterday at 09:02:04 PM]


Selkirk bull moose. by moose40
[Yesterday at 05:42:19 PM]


North Peninsula Salmon Fishing by Buckhunter24
[Yesterday at 12:43:12 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal