Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States
572 U.S. 93 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is a common law easement. When the railroad abandons such an easement, the underlying land becomes unburdened, and the owner of the servient estate obtains full possessory rights, as the United States does not retain an implied reversionary interest.
Facts:
- The General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 authorized the federal government to grant rights-of-way over public lands to railroad companies.
- In 1908, the Laramie, Hahn's Peak & Pacific Railway Company (LHP & P) obtained a 200-foot-wide right-of-way under the 1875 Act over a parcel of public land in Wyoming.
- In 1976, the United States patented an 83-acre parcel of land to Melvin and Lulu Brandt, which was crossed by the LHP & P's right-of-way.
- The patent granted the Brandts fee simple title but stated the land was "subject to" the railroad's right-of-way; it did not expressly reserve any interest in the right-of-way for the United States.
- Marvin Brandt, the son of Melvin and Lulu, became the successor owner of the property.
- After several changes in ownership, the successor railroad, the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad, formally abandoned the right-of-way in 2004, removing the tracks and ties.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2006, the United States filed a quiet title action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming against Marvin Brandt and other landowners.
- Brandt counterclaimed, asserting that the right-of-way was an easement that had been extinguished upon abandonment by the railroad.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States, quieting title to the right-of-way in the government.
- Brandt appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the United States retained an 'implied reversionary interest' in the abandoned right-of-way.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Brandt's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the United States retain an implied reversionary interest in a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 when the railroad abandons it, after the underlying land has been patented to a private owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The United States does not retain a reversionary interest because a right-of-way granted under the 1875 Act is a common law easement, which, upon abandonment, is extinguished and ceases to burden the underlying land. The Court's decision in Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, which held that the 1875 Act granted only an easement and not a fee, is controlling. In that case, the government itself successfully argued that the 1875 Act grants were mere easements, a stark contrast to its position in the present case. Standard common law principles dictate that when an easement is abandoned, the servient estate's owner (Brandt) resumes a full and unencumbered interest in the land. The patent to the Brandts conveyed the land subject to the easement but reserved no future interest for the government. Subsequent statutes passed by Congress cannot create an interest for the United States in land it had already conveyed.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. The United States did retain an implied reversionary interest because railroad rights-of-way are unique, sui generis property interests not governed by ordinary common law, and prior precedents establishing a reverter were not overruled by Great Northern. The majority misinterprets Great Northern, which only addressed subsurface mineral rights and did not abrogate the holdings of earlier cases like Townsend and Stringham, which explicitly found an implied condition of reverter to the United States. Railroad rights-of-way have historically been treated as more than simple easements, possessing attributes of a fee. Furthermore, the canon of construction that resolves ambiguities in sovereign land grants in favor of the government supports finding a retained interest. The majority's holding undermines the legality of thousands of miles of recreational trails created from former railroad lines under the federal rails-to-trails program.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and provides crucial clarity on the nature of property interests granted under the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act. The ruling significantly impacts land ownership along thousands of miles of abandoned rail lines, strengthening the property rights of landowners whose property is crossed by these corridors. By holding the government to its successful argument in Great Northern, the Court emphasized the importance of consistency and predictability in land title law. The decision has substantial practical consequences, potentially jeopardizing the federal 'rails-to-trails' program and likely spurring an increase in Fifth Amendment takings litigation from landowners whose property was converted to public trails without compensation.
Unlock the full brief for Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States