North Dakota v. United States
103 S. Ct. 1095, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 23, 75 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a state has given the consent required by federal law for the acquisition of land or easements by the United States, that consent cannot be unilaterally revoked by the state. Subsequent state laws that impose new conditions or restrictions on acquisitions made pursuant to the prior consent are preempted if they conflict with the federal program's objectives.
Facts:
- The U.S. government operates a federal program under the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act to acquire easements over wetlands for waterfowl protection.
- A 1961 amendment to the Act, the Wetlands Act of 1961, requires the U.S. to obtain consent from the governor of the state where the wetlands are located before acquiring easements.
- Between 1961 and 1977, the Governors of North Dakota provided written consent for the United States to acquire easements covering approximately 1.5 million acres of wetlands.
- By 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had acquired easements over roughly half of the total acreage authorized by the governors' consents.
- In 1977, North Dakota's legislature enacted several statutes that restricted the United States' ability to acquire easements.
- These new state laws required additional approval from county commissioners, authorized landowners to drain certain wetlands contrary to federal easement terms, and limited all such easements to a maximum duration of 99 years.
- As a result of these state statutes, the United States ceased acquiring easements in North Dakota after 1977.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued the State of North Dakota in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
- The United States sought a declaratory judgment that the 1977 North Dakota statutes were invalid and could not be applied to prevent further acquisitions based on prior consents.
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the United States.
- North Dakota, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the case.
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 a state's consent to the federal acquisition of wetlands easements, required by the Wetlands Act of 1961, create a right for the federal government that cannot be unilaterally revoked or conditioned by subsequent state legislation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. A state's consent to the federal acquisition of wetlands easements, once given, cannot be unilaterally revoked or conditioned by subsequent state legislation. The plain language of the federal statute only requires that an acquisition 'has been approved,' implying a one-time act rather than continuous consent. Allowing states to revoke consent at will would severely hamper the federal government's ability to engage in the long-term planning and funding necessary for the national migratory bird preservation program, thereby frustrating the purpose of the Act. Citing 'United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co.', federal law governs these acquisitions, and the North Dakota statutes are preempted because they are 'plainly hostile' to federal interests by undermining the 'certainty and finality' essential to the federal program.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
No, consent cannot be revoked at will, but it is not irrevocable forever; it is only effective for a reasonable period of time. While agreeing that a state cannot simply revoke its consent at will, Congress did not intend to bind states forever if the federal government failed to act on the consent. Therefore, consent should be viewed as irrevocable only for a 'reasonable time.' This case should be remanded for a factual determination of whether the United States' 16-year delay in acquiring the remaining easements was unreasonable. The majority errs by deciding this factual issue as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of the federal government in cooperative federalism programs involving land acquisition. It establishes that a state's consent, once given, acts as a binding trigger for federal action, not as a continuous veto that can be withdrawn based on shifting political priorities. The ruling provides federal agencies with the stability and predictability needed to execute long-term, capital-intensive national projects. By applying preemption doctrine to strike down 'hostile' state laws, the case reinforces the Supremacy Clause and limits a state's ability to interfere with the implementation of a federal program it has previously approved.
