South Dakota Mining Ass'n v. Lawrence County
155 F.3d 1005 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause, a local ordinance is preempted by federal law if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. A local ordinance that functions as a de facto ban on mining on federal lands, by prohibiting the only economically viable method of extraction, conflicts with the Federal Mining Act of 1872's objective to encourage mineral development and is therefore preempted.
Facts:
- On November 5, 1996, voters in Lawrence County, South Dakota, approved an ordinance banning any new or amended permits for surface metal mining within the Spearfish Canyon Area.
- The Spearfish Canyon Area covers approximately 40,000 acres, 90% of which is federal land within the Black Hills National Forest under the control of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
- This public land is open to mineral development, and various mining companies, including the plaintiffs, hold patented and unpatented mining claims within the designated area.
- The plaintiff mining companies have made substantial investments in exploring the area and developing mining plans.
- The geology of the Spearfish Canyon Area is such that its valuable gold and silver deposits are located at the earth's surface.
- For the past 20 years, surface metal mining has been the only mining method used, and it is the only technologically and economically practical method to extract these specific mineral deposits.
Procedural Posture:
- The South Dakota Mining Association and several mining companies filed suit against Lawrence County in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was preempted by federal law and an injunction to block its enforcement.
- Jack Cole, a private landowner, was granted leave to intervene as a defendant to defend the ordinance.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the ordinance was preempted by the Federal Mining Act of 1872.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance.
- Intervenor Jack Cole, the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, while Lawrence County, the appellee, supported the district court's ruling.
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 Federal Mining Act of 1872 preempt a county ordinance that prohibits the issuance of new or amended permits for surface metal mining in an area containing federal lands, where surface mining is the only technologically and economically feasible method of mineral extraction?
Opinions:
Majority - Hansen, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the Federal Mining Act of 1872 preempts the county ordinance. A local ordinance that prohibits the only viable method of mining on federal lands stands as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of federal law. The court's preemption analysis focused on whether the ordinance conflicts with federal law by creating an obstacle to Congressional objectives. The purpose of the Federal Mining Act is to 'foster and encourage private enterprise in... the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources' on federal lands. Because the record established that surface mining is the only practical way to extract minerals in the Spearfish Canyon Area, the ordinance's ban on permits for this method acts as a de facto ban on all mining. This complete prohibition directly frustrates the accomplishment of the federally encouraged activities. The court distinguished this case from California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., where a state could impose reasonable environmental regulations on mining, by noting that the Lawrence County ordinance is fundamentally prohibitory, not regulatory. A local government cannot prohibit a lawful use of federal land that the federal government itself permits and encourages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the line between permissible local environmental regulation and impermissible prohibition of activities on federal land. It reinforces the doctrine of obstacle preemption, showing that local laws need not directly contradict federal laws to be invalid; it is enough if they frustrate federal purposes. The case solidifies the principle that while localities can regulate the how of activities like mining on federal lands (e.g., environmental standards), they cannot use their zoning or permitting power to create an outright ban that functions as a veto over federally-sanctioned land use. This precedent significantly limits the ability of local communities to block resource extraction projects on nearby federal lands when those projects are consistent with federal law.
