Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. United States Forest Service
655 F.2d 951 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act grants a nationwide right of access to non-federally owned land completely surrounded by lands within the National Forest System.
Facts:
- Through the Northern Pacific Land Grant Act of 1864, the U.S. government granted odd-numbered sections of land in a checkerboard pattern to the predecessor of Burlington Northern, Inc., while retaining the even-numbered sections.
- This historical land grant resulted in Burlington Northern owning timberland in Montana that is now completely surrounded by the Gallatin National Forest.
- The specific federal lands surrounding Burlington Northern's property are located in the Buck Creek and Yellow Mules drainages, which are protected as potential wilderness areas under the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977.
- In 1979, the United States Forest Service issued a permit to Burlington Northern to construct an access road across the national forest land to harvest timber from its enclosed property.
- The Montana Wilderness Association and other environmental groups opposed the road, arguing its construction would disqualify the protected areas from potential wilderness designation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Montana Wilderness Association and others (plaintiffs) filed suit against the United States Forest Service in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted a temporary restraining order, and the Forest Service suspended Burlington Northern's access permit.
- After the Attorney General issued an opinion on the matter, the Forest Service reinstated the permit.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of Burlington Northern's right of access.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted partial summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Burlington Northern had a right of access to its land.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's partial summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which provides a right of access to non-federally owned land within the National Forest System, apply nationwide or only to lands in Alaska?
Opinions:
Majority - Norris, J.
Yes, Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act applies nationwide. Although the Act primarily concerns lands in Alaska and its direct legislative history is ambiguous, subsequent legislative history from a congressional conference committee on another act provides a decisive interpretation. The court's reasoning began with the plain text of § 1323(a), which refers to the 'National Forest System' without geographic limitation, a term defined elsewhere in federal law as nationwide. However, the court noted this was in tension with the Alaska-specific focus of the rest of the Act and the parallel structure of § 1323(b), which seems to apply only to Alaska. The legislative history of the Act itself was sparse and inconclusive. The decisive evidence was a House-Senate Conference Committee report on the Colorado Wilderness Act, issued three weeks after the Alaska Lands Act passed. That report stated that an access provision was deleted from the Colorado bill specifically because 'similar language has already passed Congress in Section 1323 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,' demonstrating the enacting Congress's understanding that § 1323(a) had nationwide effect. The court found this subsequent history by a committee with intimate knowledge of the original act to be 'very persuasive' and sufficient to 'tip the balance' in favor of a nationwide interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a statutory right of access for private landowners whose property is surrounded by national forests throughout the United States, significantly impacting land use and management conflicts between private rights and public conservation goals. It serves as a prominent example of statutory interpretation where the court resolves ambiguity not through the text or direct legislative history, but by giving decisive weight to subsequent legislative history. This approach affirms that a later Congress's interpretation and actions, when clear and directly related, can be a powerful tool in determining the intent of an earlier, ambiguous statute, potentially influencing how courts approach similar interpretive challenges in the future.
