Hodel, Acting Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Indiana et al.
452 U.S. 314 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress may regulate intrastate activities that affect interstate commerce, such as surface mining, under the Commerce Clause so long as Congress has a rational basis for concluding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce and the regulatory means are reasonably adapted to a permissible end.
Facts:
- In 1977, Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) to establish national standards for regulating surface coal mining.
- The Act includes special "prime farmland" provisions that apply to mining on land historically used for cropland and which require operators to demonstrate the ability to restore the land to equivalent or higher levels of agricultural yield post-mining.
- These provisions mandate that operators separately remove, segregate, and replace the distinct soil layers on prime farmland.
- The Act also contains general provisions applicable nationwide, including a requirement that operators restore mined land to its "approximate original contour."
- Another general provision requires the separate removal and preservation of topsoil for use in reclamation.
- The Act prohibits surface mining within specified distances of public buildings, schools, churches, public parks, and occupied dwellings.
- The State of Indiana and other Midwestern states have significant coal reserves located under prime farmland, making the Act's requirements particularly relevant to operators in that region.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana and the Indiana Coal Association filed two separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging the Surface Mining Act was unconstitutional.
- The District Court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- The District Court decided the case on the merits, ruling that the challenged provisions of the Act were unconstitutional on Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment grounds.
- The District Court issued a permanent injunction preventing the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing the challenged provisions.
- The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the United States, appealed the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the prime farmland provisions and other general requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 exceed congressional power under the Commerce Clause or violate the Fifth and Tenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. The challenged provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act are a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and do not violate the Tenth or Fifth Amendments. A court may invalidate legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause only if it is clear there is no rational basis for a congressional finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, or that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means and the asserted ends. Congress had a rational basis to conclude that surface mining on prime farmland affects interstate commerce in agricultural products, and the volume of commerce affected is irrelevant to this inquiry. The Tenth Amendment is not violated because the Act regulates the activities of private individuals and businesses, not the 'States as States.' The Act survives Fifth Amendment scrutiny because it is social and economic legislation rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, and any disparate geographic impact does not render it unconstitutional. Finally, the 'mere enactment' of the statute does not constitute a taking of property because the provisions do not prohibit mining but merely regulate the conditions under which it may occur.
Analysis:
This case, along with its companion, Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., strongly reaffirms a broad, deferential interpretation of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It clarifies that the rational basis test in this context requires only a reasonable congressional belief of an effect on interstate commerce, not judicial agreement on the substantiality of that effect. The decision also narrowly construes the Tenth Amendment doctrine from National League of Cities, limiting its application to federal laws that directly regulate state governments rather than private actors. This ruling solidifies federal authority to enact comprehensive environmental and economic regulations that impact traditional areas of state concern, such as land use, provided a rational connection to interstate commerce exists.
