From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Biodiversity Associates v. Cables
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
357 F.3d 1152 (2004)
The United States Congress delegated managerial authority over the Black Hills National Forest to the United States Forest Service (defendant). In 1997, the forest service approved a revised plan for administration of the Black Hills National Forest. As part of the revised plan, the Beaver Park Roadless Area was to be opened for timber sales. The Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (the alliance) (plaintiff) objected to a planned timber sale in the Beaver Park area. Environmental groups ultimately sued the forest service, which led to the execution of a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided that the forest service would not allow any tree cutting in the Beaver Park area until the forest service approved a new management plan for the land and resources in Black Hills National Forest. The process for approving a new plan dragged on. Meanwhile, mountain pine beetles were proliferating within the Black Hill National Forest. In 1999, the beetles had killed 15,000 trees, but, in 2002, the beetles killed about 114,000 trees. Cables (defendant), who was the regional forester for Black Hills National Forest, and other forest managers sought to obtain permission to remove trees from the Beaver Park area. The forest service sought to obtain consent from the environmental groups to modify the settlement agreement to allow for some direly needed tree removal, but the environmental groups refused. After this refusal, the forest service turned to Congress for a solution. In August 2002, Congress passed an appropriations bill that contained a legislative rider (i.e., an attachment to a legislative bill unrelated to the main point of the bill) pertaining to forest management in the Black Hills National Forest. The rider specified land-management techniques, overrode environmental laws and administrative-review requirements, explicitly superseded the settlement agreement between the environmental groups and the forest service, and precluded judicial review of actions mandated by rider. The alliance filed a motion in the federal district court, seeking an order that the settlement agreement was still valid and that the rider unconstitutionally intruded on the powers of the executive and judicial branches. The alliance argued that the rider’s specificity took the rider beyond the domain of Congress’s legislative powers and violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. The district court denied the alliance’s motion.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (McConnell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.