Lexplug logoLexplug

Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc.

United States Supreme Court
503 U.S. 429 (1992)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress may amend or change an existing law, even if the amendment is designed to and does determine the outcome of pending litigation, without violating the constitutional separation of powers.


Facts:

  • Old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are home to the threatened northern spotted owl.
  • The Forest Service and the BLM developed management plans that restricted timber harvesting in some areas to protect the owl.
  • Seattle Audubon Society and other environmental groups filed lawsuits alleging these protections were inadequate under federal environmental laws (NEPA, NFMA, MBTA, etc.).
  • The Washington Contract Loggers Association and other industry groups also filed suit, claiming the protections were excessive and harmful to the regional economy.
  • In response to this ongoing litigation, Congress enacted § 318 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, known as the 'Northwest Timber Compromise.'
  • Section 318 established a new, comprehensive set of rules governing timber harvesting in the disputed areas for fiscal year 1990.
  • Subsection (b)(6)(A) of § 318 stated that management of the forests according to these new rules 'is adequate consideration for the purpose of meeting the statutory requirements that are the basis for' the specific, named pending lawsuits.

Procedural Posture:

  • Seattle Audubon Society and others sued Robertson (Forest Service) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which consolidated the case with a suit by logging associations.
  • The trial court granted a preliminary injunction halting 163 timber sales.
  • Separately, Portland Audubon Society sued Lujan (BLM) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
  • After Congress enacted § 318, the defendants in both cases moved to dismiss. The trial courts upheld the statute as a constitutional modification of law.
  • The plaintiffs (Audubon societies) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.
  • The Ninth Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial courts' decisions, holding that § 318(b)(6)(A) was unconstitutional because it directed a judicial result in pending cases without changing the underlying law.
  • The government petitioners (Robertson and Lujan) successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

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 federal statute that provides new, temporary legal standards for specific pending cases and deems compliance with those new standards sufficient to satisfy the old legal requirements violate the constitutional separation of powers by directing a judicial outcome?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

No. The statute does not violate the separation of powers because it permissibly compelled a change in the law itself, rather than impermissibly directing findings or results under old law. Section 318(b)(6)(A) replaced the legal standards at issue in the original lawsuits with a new, temporary set of standards for fiscal year 1990. Instead of requiring courts to determine if harvesting would 'kill' an owl under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, for example, the new provision required courts to determine if the harvesting complied with the new land management rules set forth in § 318. This constitutes a valid modification of substantive law, which is within Congress's constitutional power, even if it is intended to affect the outcome of specific, pending cases. The statute's explicit reference to the pending cases by name and caption number served only to identify the underlying statutory provisions that were being modified, not to command a particular judicial result under those pre-existing provisions.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the boundary between permissible legislative action and unconstitutional legislative interference with the judiciary under the separation of powers doctrine. It affirms that Congress's power to amend substantive law is broad, extending even to laws that are targeted at resolving specific, ongoing litigation. The key distinction is that Congress must actually change the governing legal standard, not simply direct a court on how to apply an existing, unchanged law. This gives Congress a significant tool to intervene in complex policy disputes that have become mired in litigation, allowing for legislative solutions rather than purely judicial ones.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc. (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"