Case Summary

Issue:

Whether the federal government may seize private property without paying just compensation and whether the federal government may ignore reversionary property interests of landowners in its operation of the rails-to-trails program?

Plaintiff:

United States of America

Defendant:

Wyoming and Colorado Railroad Company, Inc.; Albany County, Wyoming; Marvin Brandt; other property owners

Join the Fight

Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.

Donate Now

Status

Court

U.S. Supreme Court (No. 12-1173) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (No. 09-8047)

Case History

On February 25, 1904, pursuant to the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act, the Laramie, Hahns Peak and Pacific Railroad Company filed with the U.S. Department of the Interior and thus, in 1908, acquired a 200-foot by 66-mile right-of-way from Laramie, Wyoming, to the Colorado State line. The railroad operated until September 1995. In May 1996, the owner, the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad Company, filed a Notice of Intent to Abandon Rail Service from the State line to near Laramie, Wyoming. It removed the track and ties in 1999 and 2000; service was terminated at the end of 2003.

The land along the railroad right-of-way was reserved from the public domain by presidential proclamation and became part of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Thus, the private land areas of Albany, Fox Park, and Mountain Home along the right-of-way were acquired after the establishment of the railroad and are subject to it. At Albany, private lots were platted over the right-of-way and the land conveyed subject to the railroad. Therefore, the abandonment of the railroad right-of-way creates a title conflict between these ownerships and the effects of the 1988 rails-to-trails act. Mr. Marvin Brandt owns 83 acres of private land patented to him on February 18, 1976, as part of a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service. In April 2005, the Forest Service issued a notice of its plans to convert the rail way into a public trail.

On July 14, 2006, the United States filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of abandonment and to quiet title to the right-of-way along the abandoned railroad line (D.Wyo., No. 06cv184). On August 8, 2006, Mr. Brandt filed his answer.

On October 10, 2007, Mr. Brandt and the United States filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 13, 2007, the United States and Mr. Brandt filed responses to the cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 4, 2007, the United States and Mr. Brandt filed replies in support of the cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 21, 2007, Mr. Brandt filed a motion for oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment. On January 9, 2008, the United States filed a response to Mr. Brandt’s motion for oral argument, stating it would follow the decision of the Court in the matter.

On April 8, 2008, the Court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and denied Mr. Brandt’s motion for summary judgment. On April 18, 2008, Mr. Brandt filed a motion to transfer his third counterclaim (takings claim) to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. That same day, the United States filed its opposition to the motion and a motion to dismiss the takings claim.

On March 3, 2009, the Court entered judgment, declaring abandonment and quieting title to the railroad right-of-way, and on March 4, 2009, it denied Mr. Brandt’s motion to transfer the third counterclaim (takings claim) to the Claims Court and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the third counterclaim.

On April 29, 2009, Mr. Brandt filed a notice of appeal, and on May 1, 2009, the appeal was docketed by the Tenth Circuit. On September 30, 2009, Mr. Brandt filed his opening brief. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Brandt filed his reply brief.

Explore More

Way to Keep An Open Mind, Mr. President.

William E. Trachman, General Counsel for Mountain States Legal Foundation, today expressed dismay that President Joe Biden would pre-winnow his list of possible Supreme Court candidates to just an African-American woman, thereby eliminating, out-of-hand, the possibility of choosing any other individual for that position who doesn’t meet those criteria.

The Supreme Merit of Amy Coney Barrett

Although she is a woman, and the mother of seven, and a faithful Catholicā€”all admirable traitsā€”it is her record as a judge and scholar that makes her worthy of the bench.

Get the latest updates from MSLF
News Updates