U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n

Citation140 S.Ct. 1837,207 L.Ed.2d 186
Decision Date15 June 2020
Docket NumberNos. 18-1584,18-1587,s. 18-1584
Parties UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al., Petitioners v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION et al.; Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, Petitioner v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, et al.
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Anthony A. Yang, Washington, DC, for the petitioners in No. 18–1584.

Paul D. Clement, Washington, DC, for the petitioner in No. 18–1587.

Michael K. Kellogg, Washington, DC, for the respondents.

Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel, Sarah Kathmann, Attorney Advisor, Department of Agriculture, Daniel H. Jorjani, Solicitor, John M. Henson, Attorney Advisor, Department of the Interior, Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Andrew C. Mergen, J. David Gunter II, Avi M. Kupfer, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the Federal Petitioners.

Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, William K. Lane III, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC.

Austin D. Gerken, Jr., Amelia Burnette, J. Patrick Hunter, Southern Environmental Law Center, Asheville, NC, Michael K. Kellogg, Gregory G. Rapawy, Bradley E. Oppenheimer, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Gregory Buppert, Southern Environmental Law Center, Charlottesville, VA, for respondents Cowpasture River Preservation, Association, Highlanders for Responsible, Development, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Shenandoah, Valley Network, and Virginia Wilderness Committee.

Nathan Matthews, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, Oakland, CA, for respondents, Sierra Club and, Wild Virginia, Inc.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.*

We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to decide whether the United States Forest Service has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. , to grant rights-of-way through lands within national forests traversed by the Appalachian Trail. 588 U. S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 36, 204 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2019) ; 588 U. S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 36, 204 L.Ed.2d 1193 (2019). We hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does grant the Forest Service that authority and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

I
A

In 2015, petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to construct and operate an approximately 604-mile natural gas pipeline extending from West Virginia to North Carolina. The pipeline's proposed route traverses 16 miles of land within the George Washington National Forest. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Appalachian Trail or Trail) also crosses parts of the George Washington National Forest.

To construct the pipeline, Atlantic needed to obtain special use permits from the United States Forest Service for the portions of the pipeline that would pass through lands under the Forest Service's jurisdiction. In 2018, the Forest Service issued these permits and granted a right-of-way that would allow Atlantic to place a 0.1-mile segment of pipe approximately 600 feet below the Appalachian Trail in the George Washington National Forest.

B

Respondents Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Highlanders for Responsible Development, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Shenandoah Valley Network, Sierra Club, Virginia Wilderness Committee, and Wild Virginia filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit. They contended that the issuance of the special use permit for the right-of-way under the Trail, as well as numerous other aspects of the Forest Service's regulatory process, violated the Mineral Leasing Act (Leasing Act), 41 Stat. 437, 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq. , the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. , the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2952, 16 U.S.C. § 1604, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. Atlantic intervened in the suit.

The Fourth Circuit vacated the Forest Service's special use permit after holding that the Leasing Act did not empower the Forest Service to grant the pipeline right-of-way beneath the Trail. As relevant here, the court concluded that the Appalachian Trail had become part of the National Park System because, though originally charged with the Trail's administration, 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(1), the Secretary of the Interior delegated that duty to the National Park Service, 34 Fed. Reg. 14337 (1969). In the Fourth Circuit's view, this delegation made the Trail part of the National Park System because the Trail was now an "area of land ... administered by the Secretary [of the Interior] acting through the Director [of the National Park Service]." 54 U.S.C. § 100501. Because it concluded the Trail was now within the National Park System, the court held that the Trail was beyond the authority of "the Secretary of the Interior or appropriate agency head" to grant pipeline rights-of-way under the Leasing Act. 30 U.S.C. § 185(a). See 911 F.3d 150, 179–181 (CA4 2018).1

II

These cases involve the interaction of multiple federal laws. We therefore begin by summarizing the relevant statutory and regulatory background.

A

Congress enacted the Weeks Act in 1911, Pub. L. 61–435, 36 Stat. 961, which provided for the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the National Forest System, see 16 U.S.C. §§ 516 – 517. The Weeks Act also directed that lands acquired for the National Forest System "shall be permanently reserved, held, and administered as national forest lands." § 521. Though Congress initially granted the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to administer national forest lands, § 472, the Secretary has delegated that authority to the Forest Service, 36 C.F.R. § 200.3(b)(2)(i) (2019).

What is now known as the George Washington National Forest was established as a national forest in 1918, see Proclamation No. 1448, 40 Stat. 1779, and renamed the George Washington National Forest in 1932, Exec. Order No. 5867. No party here disputes that the George Washington National Forest was acquired for inclusion in the National Forest System and that it is under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. See 16 U.S.C. § 1609.

B

Enacted in 1968, the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), among other things, establishes national scenic and national historic trails. 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a). See 82 Stat. 919, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq. The Appalachian Trail was one of the first two trails created under the Act. § 1244(a)(1).

Under the statute, the Appalachian Trail "shall be administered primarily as a footpath by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture." Ibid. The statute empowers the Secretary of the Interior to establish the location and width of the Appalachian Trail by entering into "rights-of-way" agreements with other federal agencies as well as States, local governments, and private landowners. §§ 1246(a)(2), (d), (e). However, the Trails Act also contains a proviso stating that "[n]othing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to transfer among Federal agencies any management responsibilities established under any other law for federally administered lands which are components of the National Trails System." § 1246(a)(1)(A).

The Trails Act currently establishes 30 national historic and national scenic trails. See §§ 1244(a)(1)(30). It assigns responsibility for most of those trails to the Secretary of the Interior. Ibid. Though the Act is silent on the issue of delegation, the Department of the Interior has delegated the administrative responsibility over each of those trails to either the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management, both of which are housed within the Department of the Interior. Congressional Research Service, M. De Santis & S. Johnson, The National Trails System: A Brief Overview 2–3 (Table 1), 4 (Fig. 1) (2020). Currently, the National Park Service administers 21 trails, the Bureau of Land Management administers 1 trail, and the two agencies co-administer 2 trails. Ibid. The Secretary of Interior delegated his authority over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service in 1969. 34 Fed. Reg. 14337.

C

In 1920, Congress passed the Leasing Act, which enabled the Secretary of the Interior to grant pipeline rights-of-way through "public lands, including the forest reserves," § 28, 41 Stat. 449. Congress amended the Leasing Act in 1973 to provide that not only the Secretary of the Interior but also any "appropriate agency head" may grant "[r]ights-of-way through any Federal lands ... for pipeline purposes." Pub. L. 93–153, 87 Stat. 576, codified at 30 U.S.C. § 185(a). Notably, the 1973 amendment also defined "Federal lands" to include "all lands owned by the United States, except lands in the National Park System, lands held in trust for an Indian or Indian tribe, and lands on the Outer Continental Shelf." 87 Stat. 577, codified at 30 U.S.C. § 185(b). In 1970, Congress defined the National Park System as "any area of land and water now and hereafter administered by the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes." § 2(b), 84 Stat. 826, codified at 54 U.S.C. § 100501.

III

We are tasked with determining whether the Leasing Act enables the Forest Service to grant a subterranean pipeline right-of-way some 600 feet under the Appalachian Trail. To do this, we first focus on the distinction between the lands that the Trail traverses and the Trail itself, because the lands (not the Trail) are the object of the relevant statutes.

Under the Leasing Act, the "Secretary of the Interior or appropriate agency head" may grant pipeline rights-of-way across "Federal lands ." 30 U.S.C. § 185(a) (emphasis added). The Forest Service is an "appropriate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Mass. Bldg. Trades Council v. United States Dep't of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. (In re MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 17 de dezembro de 2021
    ... ... Id. (quoting U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture ... River Pres. Ass'n , ... -live-updates/2021/12/14/1063802370/america-us-covid-death-toll ... And where grave ... ...
  • Bradford v. U.S. Dep't of Labor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 24 de janeiro de 2022
    ...& Hum. Servs. , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489, 210 L.Ed.2d 856 (2021) (citing Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1850, 207 L.Ed.2d 186 (2020) ). Rather, the Biden Rule would have a small economic impact and is clearly within DOL's ......
  • Texas v. Becerra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 15 de dezembro de 2021
    ...if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power." United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1850, 207 L.Ed.2d 186 (2020) ; see also Teltech Sys., Inc. v. Bryant , 702 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 2012) (noting the......
  • Texas v. Becerra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 31 de dezembro de 2021
    ...if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power." U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1850, 207 L.Ed.2d 186 (2020) (citing Gregory v. Ashcroft , 501 U.S. 452, 460, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) ). Congr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Wetlands And WOTUS: Implications Of Sackett V. EPA
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 12 de junho de 2023
    ...Cook County, 531 U.S. at 174 (2001). 14. Id. at *14, citing United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1849-50 15. Id. at *15. 16. Id. at *15, citing McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. 550, 576 (2016). 17. See Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders, "NAHB Commends ......
9 books & journal articles
  • How Environmental Litigation Has Turned Pipelines Into Pipe Dreams
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 52-7, July 2022
    • 1 de julho de 2022
    ...of Atlantic, announced the cancellation of the 234. Id . 235. Id . 236. Id . at 181. 237. Id . at 182-83. 238. Id . at 183. 239. 140 S. Ct. 1837, 50 ELR 20148 (2020). 240. Id . at 1841. 241. 30 U.S.C.A. §185 (West 1920). 242. Id . §185(a) (West 1973). 243. Id . §185(b) (West 2021). 244. Id ......
  • The New Law of Geology: Rights, Responsibilities, and Geosystem Services
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 52-5, May 2022
    • 1 de maio de 2022
    ...pipeline construction impacts for failure to give a hard look at landslide risks, erosion, and water quality), rev’d on other grounds , 140 S. Ct. 1837 (2020); Holy Cross v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 455 F. Supp. 2d 532, 36 ELR 20208 (E.D. La. 2006) (ordering supplemental environmental rev......
  • ORDINARY MEANING AND ORDINARY PEOPLE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 171 No. 2, January 2023
    • 1 de janeiro de 2023
    ...words). Common words frequently have both ordinary and technical meanings. See, e.g., U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1852 n.4 (2020) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (recognizing that "land" has both an ordinary and a legal (23) See Schauer, supra note 21, at......
  • Progressive Textualism
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-6, June 2022
    • 1 de junho de 2022
    ...501–02. Common words frequently have both ordinary and technical meanings. See, e.g., U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1852 n.4 (2020) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (recognizing that “land” has both an ordinary and a legal meaning). 279. See Barrett, supra n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT