United States v. Nye County, Nev.

District Court, D. Nevada
1996 WL 146199, 920 F.Supp. 1108 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Equal Footing Doctrine transfers title of lands beneath navigable waters to states upon admission as an attribute of sovereignty, but it does not transfer title to unappropriated dry lands, which remain under federal ownership pursuant to the Property Clause.

Facts:

In 1979, the State of Nevada enacted statutes declaring ownership and control over all 'public lands' within the state, excluding only specific federal enclaves.
In late 1993, Nye County passed Resolution 93-48 declaring that Nevada owned the disputed public lands and Resolution 93-49 declaring county ownership of rights-of-way across these lands.
Nye County Commissioner Richard Carver wrote letters to federal agencies asserting that the United States lacked authority to manage these lands.
On July 4, 1994, Commissioner Carver used a county-owned bulldozer to reopen Jefferson Canyon Road within the Toiyabe National Forest.
During this incident, Carver strayed from the existing right-of-way, damaging national forest land and flora.
A U.S. Forest Service agent displayed a sign ordering Carver to stop, but Carver ignored the order and continued bulldozing.
Carver subsequently filed an affidavit seeking criminal charges against the federal agents, claiming they lacked jurisdiction.
Nye County later threatened to reopen other closed roads in the National Forest, asserting they were county public roads.

Procedural Posture:

The United States filed a complaint against Nye County in U.S. District Court seeking a declaration of ownership and authority.
The United States moved for partial summary judgment on Counts I and IV.
The District Court required supplemental briefs regarding whether the State of Nevada asserted ownership.
The United States amended its complaint to join the State of Nevada as a Defendant.
The Court granted leave for the parties to renew motions for summary judgment.
The Court received supplemental memoranda and heard oral arguments.

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 Equal Footing Doctrine transfer title of unappropriated dry public lands from the federal government to a state upon its admission to the Union, thereby divesting the United States of ownership and management authority?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge George

No, the Equal Footing Doctrine does not transfer title of dry public lands to the state. The court reasoned that while the Supreme Court has established that title to lands submerged by navigable and tidal waters passes to states upon admission as an attribute of sovereignty (public trust), this principle does not extend to dry lands. Relying on Scott v. Lattig and United States v. Oregon, the court found that unappropriated dry lands remain the property of the United States. The Constitution's Property Clause grants Congress plenary power to retain and regulate these lands. Consequently, because the United States holds valid title, the Supremacy Clause preempts Nye County Resolution 93-49 to the extent it attempts to establish rights-of-way not recognized by federal law.

Analysis:

This decision effectively dismantled the legal basis for the 'Sagebrush Rebellion,' a movement in the Western United States seeking local control over federal lands. By clearly distinguishing between submerged lands (which pass to states under the Equal Footing Doctrine) and dry lands (which do not), the court reaffirmed the federal government's absolute title and management authority over public lands such as National Forests and BLM land. The ruling underscores that local dissatisfaction with federal land management does not create a legal basis for declaring state ownership or ignoring federal regulations.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Nye County, Nev. (1996)

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