Cases - California

Whether federal land management agencies can impose restrictions on activities on federal lands that are contrary to federal law.

Whether California’s access regulation requiring agricultural businesses to grant access to their private property to union organizers without compensation violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Whether a federal district court may cancel federal oil and gas leases absent proof of irreparable injury?

Whether a miner who prevails against the U.S. Forest Service in its attempt to seize his mining claim is entitled to be paid attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)?

Whether a federal program that requires a business to turn over its private property to the government for sale by the government and possible return of some of the proceeds of that sale constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation?

Whether the United States may defeat the purpose of a mining patent by claiming an ownership interest in the structures that are reasonable and incident to mining operations?

Whether the State of California may prevent small miners from developing their mining claims on federal land?

Whether Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), which interpreted the Endangered Species Act prior to Congress’s addition of “reasonable and prudent alternative,” still require that federal agencies protect species and their habitat “whatever the cost”?

Whether an environmental group can prevent the use of federal lands in ten States because of purported impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat?

Whether an environmental group can prevent the use of federal lands in six States because of purported impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat?