Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

North Dakota v. United States

United States Supreme Court
460 U.S. 300 (1983)


Facts

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Conservation Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 715 et seq., authorized the federal government (plaintiff) to acquire land for use as migratory-bird sanctuaries, subject to state legislative consent. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Stamp Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 718 et seq., funded these land acquisitions by requiring waterfowl hunters to buy stamps. The Stamp Act was amended in 1958 to allow easement acquisition over wetlands, which was not subject to the Conservation Act’s requirements. The Wetlands Act of 1961 (Loan Act) provided a new income source for wetland acquisition, and required the consent of a state governor or agency prior to acquisition. Between 1961 and 1977, two North Dakota governors consented to the acquisition of federal easements over approximately 1.5 million acres of wetlands. By 1977, the federal government had acquired easements over nearly half of these wetlands. After a dispute with the federal government, the State of North Dakota (state) (defendant) enacted legislation in 1977 that limited easements to 99 years and authorized landowners to drain any after-expanded wetlands. The federal government sued the state in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1977 legislation was inapplicable because the 99-year and wetland-draining provisions were hostile to federal law. The district court granted summary judgment for the federal government. The court of appeals affirmed. The state appealed, asserting that the Loan Act’s gubernatorial-consent requirement allowed the at-will revocation of state consent, up until the moment of land acquisition. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction over the state’s appeal.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.