Kelo v. the City of New London
The Supreme Court ruled June 23, 2005, that local government bodies now have authority to condemn property and/or convert it if it is found to have a higher economic value.  This could have an immediate impact on those living in areas of increased urban/rural conflict. Traditionally, eminent domain authority allowed governments to seize private property to be developed for public services, such as government buildings, utilities, and roadways.  The Kelo v. the City of New London decision increased eminent domain powers for the government significantly.

Of particular concern for ranchers, it is not hard to conceive of a government deciding that a local community needs a strip mall more then it needs the ranches that currently occupy the land.  NCBA and PLC agree that this decision is deeply troubling to anybody who believes in civil liberties and a limited government.  Under the rationale of the majority decision, virtually any government can be rationalized as a public use.

In her dissent to the ruling, Justice Sandra Day O’Conner wrote:

“All private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so as long as it might be upgraded.  The specter of condemnation hangs over all property.  Nothing is to prevent [local governments] from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Congress, as well as some states, has moved to limit this power. Media reports indicate as many as forty-one states in the country have curtailed the use of eminent domain for private use.  At the federal level, there are three bills in the 110^th Congress that seek to limit the Eminent Domain authority to seize private property as granted by the Supreme Court decision.  These include:

- H.R. 926, The STOPP Act of 2007 - Introduced by Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.) on 2/8/07; This bill was approved by the House Ag Committee on May 17. 

- H.R. 3053, Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2007 - introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) on 7/16/07;

- S. 48, Private Property Rights Protection Act - Introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) on 1/4/07;

Wilkie v. Robbins

The Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Wilkie v. Robbins on June 25, 2007.  NCBA, the Public Lands Council (PLC), the Wyoming Public Land Coalition, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association joined together in filing an amicus brief in the suit.  

The central issue for ranchers within the case is the right of private property owners to deny federal access to their property and the legal options available to property owners for holding federal officials accountable for inappropriate actions.

In this case, a Wyoming rancher alleged the government harassed him and extorted his private property and sought relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and under the Constitution for retaliating for excluding the government from his property.

Harvey Frank Robbins owns the High Island Ranch near Thermopolis, Wyo., and a dispute between Robbins and the Bureau of Land Management began over ten years ago when Robbins purchased the ranch.  The 80,000 acres involved in this case are partly public and partly private lands, and at issue is whether Robbins had a right to deny the BLM access to his property.  In court cases over the past decade, Robbins won two preliminary victories in the U.S. district and circuit courts. 

In response to Robbins’ refusal to grant a right-of-way across his property, the Bureau of Land Management reportedly refused to maintain the road providing access to his property; threatened to cancel, and then cancelled, his right-of-way across federal lands; stated they would “bury Frank Robbins”; cancelled his recreation use permit and grazing privileges; brought unfounded criminal charges against him; trespassed on his property; and interfered with his guest cattle drives.  The harassment eventually forced Robins to shut down his dude ranch business.

Unfortunately, the court rejected all of Robbins' claims and ruled that recognizing Robbins claim would invite claims in every sphere of legitimate government action affecting property interests. The Court also rejected the extortion and RICO claim. 

NCBA is deeply concerned about the brazen disrespect for private property and the extent to which the federal government can improperly intimidate private citizens. This issue strikes a blow to the most fundamental principles under which ranchers and westerners exist.  Our western producers interact extensively with government officials and we want to put the government on notice that continued abuses of this kind will not be tolerated.

Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Keith Kisling, a cattle rancher and wheat farmer from Burlington, Oklahoma told a Senate subcommittee that the government should not be over-regulating wetlands or ditches on farmers’ and ranchers’ private property under the Clean Water Act. 

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water called the hearing on August 1, 2006, to discuss the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions in the joint cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on "The Waters of the United States."  Kisling says the decisions issued in these cases limit the waters subject to regulation under the Act, and the government needs to act accordingly. 

“The challenge for society in using private lands is to strike a sensible balance between the demands of food production and conservation of natural resources,” said Kisling.  “Regulation has been allowed to proceed unlawfully and directly at odds with teachings from the leading Supreme Court cases.” 

A copy of his testimony is accessible by clicking on the link below: 

Testimony of Oklahoma Cattleman and NCBA Member Keith Kisling before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water on Interpreting the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the joint cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on "The Waters of the United States,"  August 1, 2006.