Trump administration sues California over state law on federal land transfers

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
20,182
Location
Cedar, MI
In 2015 Senator Fielder, the American Lands Council & Americans for Prosperity tried to pass similar legislation. The sporting & conservation lobby were raked over the coals by people trying to claim that we were really for transfer &sale because we opposed this unconstitutional effort and were asking for better management, not hyperbolic statements that wouldn't stand up in court. We were joined by businesses & the timber industry in our opposition. The statements from AG Sessions also seemingly would blow a large hole in the idea that states have a claim to federal public lands, as often espoused by Senator Fielder & her UT handlers. Similarly, it shows this administration does not share the concept that the UT Led effort to transfer and eliminate public lands through their lawsuit will go very far. In a more likely scenario, the UT lawsuit will just be another taxpayer funded boondoggle for folks to use to purchase their next mini-mansion after pocketing the proceeds, like Mr. Benson of Big Game Forever.

It's nice to see the Attorney General take this position. Kudos to Jeff Sessions & the AG's office for fighting this unconstitutional bill.


http://bigskypolitics.blogspot.com/2018/04/carhartt-bloodlines-and-place-of-birth.html

The legal war between the Trump administration and the state of California expanded Monday as the Justice Department sued to block a new state law that limits transfers of federal lands.

The suit, filed in federal court in Sacramento on Monday, contends that the state law is unconstitutional because it interferes with Congress’ right to control the sale of federal property.


California’s Legislature adopted the law last October at the urging of environmentalists concerned that the Trump administration was readying plans to sell off federal land for real estate development, mining or drilling.

The new suit was filed by the Justice Department less than a month after the federal government sued California over three other state laws widely viewed as enacting “sanctuary” policies aimed at blocking aggressive immigration enforcement by the Trump administration.

That suit grabbed headlines, but lawyers for the state and attorneys for the federal government have been battling in court for months over more than two dozen lawsuits California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has brought on issues ranging from the president’s so-called travel ban to rollbacks of birth control coverage under Obamacare to efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military.

Justice Department officials expressed frustration Monday with the tactics California’s legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown have used to register their disagreement with Trump policies.

By JOSH GERSTEIN 04/02/2018 03:25 PM EDT Updated 04/02/2018 03:57 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The legal war between the Trump administration and the state of California expanded Monday as the Justice Department sued to block a new state law that limits transfers of federal lands.

The suit, filed in federal court in Sacramento on Monday, contends that the state law is unconstitutional because it interferes with Congress’ right to control the sale of federal property.


California’s Legislature adopted the law last October at the urging of environmentalists concerned that the Trump administration was readying plans to sell off federal land for real estate development, mining or drilling.

The new suit was filed by the Justice Department less than a month after the federal government sued California over three other state laws widely viewed as enacting “sanctuary” policies aimed at blocking aggressive immigration enforcement by the Trump administration.

That suit grabbed headlines, but lawyers for the state and attorneys for the federal government have been battling in court for months over more than two dozen lawsuits California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has brought on issues ranging from the president’s so-called travel ban to rollbacks of birth control coverage under Obamacare to efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military.

Justice Department officials expressed frustration Monday with the tactics California’s legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown have used to register their disagreement with Trump policies.

“California has, once again, passed an extreme statute found in no other state to obstruct the federal government, this time by interfering with the conveyance of federal lands,” acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio told reporters. “This is another example of California ignoring federal law. No state legislature can, statute by statute, undermine the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.”
ADVERTISING




In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said California officials are not only ignoring the Constitution, but also the very terms under which California became a state in 1850.

“California was admitted to the Union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal land,” Sessions said. “The Justice Department shouldn't have to spend valuable time and resources to file this suit today, but we have a duty to defend the rightful prerogatives of the U.S. military, the Interior Department and other federal agencies.”

A Justice Department official said he and his colleagues aren’t singling out California but are responding to an unprecedented series of legal provocations from the state.

“To the extent it looks like we’re focusing on California, that is really a product of the extreme nature of the laws California is passing in recent days,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are passing laws no other state is passing or has thought to pass and that's because they’re unconstitutional.”

Justice Department officials said they did not discuss legal concerns about the bill with the state before the suit was filed Monday. They said, however, that state officials are well aware of the legal problems, because the state Legislature's official analysis of the bill issued prior to its passage noted a “strong possibility” that the measure would be found unconstitutional.

Becerra vowed to defend the California law, and he said the state will continue its aggressive legal campaign against Trump policies.

“California didn’t become our nation’s economic engine and the sixth-largest economy in the world by just sitting back,” the California attorney general said in a statement. “Our public lands should not be on the auction block to the highest bidder. We’re prepared, as always, to do what it takes to protect our people, our resources, and our values.”

The state law, known as Senate Bill 50, requires that the California State Lands Commission have right of first refusal on any land transfer planned by the federal government. Federal officials say the law has already scuttled or bogged down planned transfers of several federal properties to developers, often under plans that were the subject of extensive negotiation with local officials.
 
Thanks for posting this, Ben. It would appear that the Feds specifically want their transfers to go to private entities. Why? If Trump's goal in transferring my public land is to financially benefit extractors/developers, I'd rather see it go to the state of CA. The state is far more likely to take lasting care of it, @ least that is what the pro-PLT masses have been yelling forever.

And what types of our land is Zinke trying to liquidate in CA?
 
elkduds, If I understand it correctly, if the state of California can dictate that the federal government is not allowed to sell federally controlled land within it's borders, it sets a precedent that allows another state like Utah, to dictate that the federal government can be forced to sell all the federally controlled lands within it' s borders.

It comes down to the fact that the western states that have significant federal lands within their state borders gave up all legal claim to any lands not designated to be owned by the state at the time they were admitted into the United States as states instead of remaining territories.

States rights do not trump federal law on matters that the federal government has jurisdiction over. It's one of the reasons a state can no longer make it legal to own slaves. It's why a state is not allowed to pass laws that discriminate and remove freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.

At face value, California forbidding the sale of federal land in it's boundaries might seem like a win for pro-public lands advocates. It would be a double edged sword, though and if allowed to stand, the pendulum effect could be devastation in states that the buy the transfer argument.
 
Thanks for posting this, Ben. It would appear that the Feds specifically want their transfers to go to private entities. Why? If Trump's goal in transferring my public land is to financially benefit extractors/developers, I'd rather see it go to the state of CA. The state is far more likely to take lasting care of it, @ least that is what the pro-PLT masses have been yelling forever.

And what types of our land is Zinke trying to liquidate in CA?

Gerald hit the salient points regarding the constitution & admittance into the union, etc.

Not sure what lands DOI or others are looking to dispose of in CA. The Federal Lands Transfer Facilitation Act (FLTFA) is often used to eliminate some isolated tracts or properties that are no longer necessary (think buildings & complexes rather than wildlife habitat/uncategorized public land), where there is an opportunity to increase public land access, deal with checkerboard issues, or public land in places where there is a need for increased house or development, like Vegas or even Jackson Hole - both communities are surrounded by public land and are in need of increased housing, etc.
 
Thanks, Ben and Gerald. My read of it was that "right of first refusal," going to CA meant that any real estate for sale in Cali by the Feds would have to be offered to the state of CA before being sold to private interests. If that is the case, the CA law would not impact the right of the Fed to sell. It would only give CA first crack @ the purchase. It would not give CA any authority to force sale of federal real estate in the state, that decision would rest solely w the Feds. I can see this interfering w direct exchanges of federal for private land. Not clear why my federal lands should be converted to development property @ the whim of the current administration, or any admin.
 
The way I see it,Sessions say's CA has no right to stop the Fed's from selling due to language in statehood papers.....blah blah.
What it says is States have no claim or say on Federal lands due to signing statehood papers.
Use of or aquisition of either.
Not just sell. Double edge indeed.
 
Thanks for sharing the details, Gerald and Ben. Good to see the objectivity come out of what would otherwise be slanted politics, one direction or the other.

Good read. Good information.
 
From what I remember the right of 1st refusal deal is one that is in an existing or under consideration land use plan with options on surrounding Federal lands in the MOU. Saw it happen on several pieces on the Central Coast in conjunction with Open Space projects & Parks. Same with some land swaps in the Nat.Forests.
On that parcel or chunk o land, CA did have or does have right of 1st refusal.
 
From what I remember the right of 1st refusal deal is one that is in an existing or under consideration land use plan with options on surrounding Federal lands in the MOU. Saw it happen on several pieces on the Central Coast in conjunction with Open Space projects & Parks. Same with some land swaps in the Nat.Forests.
On that parcel or chunk o land, CA did have or does have right of 1st refusal.

The problem is not on the right of first refusal, it's the violation of the supremacy clause & property clause of the constitution. When a state passes a law that seeks to supersede the authority of the federal gov't on things like land disposal, etc, then it's a violation of those clauses. Entering into a mutual agreement through land planning does not violate the constitution because it's a negotiated settlement with two willing parties versus legislative edict.
 
Back
Top