Hodel v. Indiana
United States Supreme Court
452 U.S. 314, 101 S. Ct. 2376, 69 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1981)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (the act) in order to protect air and water pollution as well as preserve the productive capacity of mined lands and protect the public from health and safety hazards associated with surface coal mining. The act contained sections that established special requirements for surface-mining operations conducted on land that qualified as prime farmland. These provisions were known as the prime-farmland provisions. The prime-farmland provisions required that surface coal permits would only be issued on prime farmland if the mine operator could demonstrate its technological capability to restore the mined area to the equivalent levels of yield as the surrounding nonmined prime farmland. Operators also had to show they could meet soil-reconstruction standards of prime farmland. Hodel (plaintiff) brought suit in district court against Indiana (defendant), challenging the constitutionality of the provisions. The district court ruled that the provisions of the act were unconstitutional because they went beyond congressional power to regulate interstate commerce and violated the Commerce Clause. The district court found that surface coal mining had no substantial and adverse effect on interstate commerce and permanently enjoined the enforcement of the prime-farmland provisions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
Concurrence (Burger, J.)
Concurrence (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.