Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lyng
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
882 F.2d 1417 (1989)
- Written by Melanie Moultry, JD
Facts
The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act (Act) required the U.S. secretary of agriculture (secretary) to develop a comprehensive management plan (CMP) for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (recreation area), located in Oregon and Idaho. The Act’s purpose was to ensure the preservation of the recreation area. The first sentence of § 10 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 460gg-7, required the secretary to promulgate regulations “as he deems necessary.” The second sentence of § 10 required the secretary to promulgate the types of regulations specified in subsections 10(a) through 10(e). The United States Forest Service (USFS) (defendant) proposed to sell timber within the recreation area. Oregon Natural Resources Council and other environmental groups (plaintiffs) sued the USFS in district court, seeking to enjoin the timber sales. The plaintiffs claimed that (1) section 8(f) of the Act limited timber harvesting to areas where harvesting had occurred at the time of the Act’s enactment, and (2) section 10 of the Act required the secretary to promulgate regulations prior to authorizing timber harvesting in the recreation area. The district court barred the plaintiffs’ § 8(f) claim on the basis of laches and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and also found in favor of the USFS on the § 10 claim. The plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Trott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.