Page One

DECADES DELAY DECRIED: KAFKAESQUE!

REAGAN ERA ENERGY LEASE IN COURTSummer 2015

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org

Its Kafkaesque. [I]t really, really is troubling. Its very troubling, declared federal district court judge Richard J. Leon in a Washington, D.C. courtroom after calling an expedited hearing in the attempt by MSLFs client Sidney Longwell to be allowed to drill on the federal lease he ob-tained in 1982. I think the people at these agencies are lucky they havent been deposed about their actions in these in this matter. I think they might find it very awkward to be under oath and have to answer questions about the speed at which they have performed their tasks here, continued the judge. Then he turned his attention to the Department of Justice attorney before him, I think youd be hard-pressed to defend that conduct.

Mr. Longwell of Baton Rouge, Louisi-ana, won the lease in 1982, but has been denied the right to explore his property since initial approval of an application for permit to drill (APD) in 1985. On behalf of his company, Solenex, LLC, he sued Secre-tary of the Interior Sally Jewell and other Interior Department and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials in federal district court in the District of Columbia. He charges the United States has unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed the action necessary to permit him to exercise the rights granted him under the lease is-sued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on 6,247 acres in the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Glacier County, Montana in northwestern Montana. A de-cade was spent obtaining final approval to drill but, for the next twenty years, federal officials suspended the lease and barred

all activity.In 1983, Mr. Longwell assigned the

lease to America Petrofina Company of Texas, which later became Fina Oil and

Chemical Company. In October of 1983, Fina submitted an application for per-mit to drill near Hall Creek, approximately 2 miles south of U.S. Highway 2 to evalu-ate the natural gas potential of that por-tion of the Overthrust

Belt. After extensive review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preser-vation Act (NHPA), amidst appeals, and following a ruling by the Interior Board of Land Appeals, in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM approved the APD in 1985, 1987, 1991, and finally in January of 1993.

Nonetheless, the Clinton adminis-tration tried to kill the lease. In 1993, 1994, and 1995, Secretary Bruce Babbitt suspended lease activity purportedly so Congress could designate the area as a wilderness, which was impossible the tribe has reserved rights to hunt and gath-er wood there. In 1996, Babbitt continued the suspension ostensibly to comply with the NHPA a fifth time, repeated that suspension in 1997, and in 1998 made it indefinite.

In 1999, FINA assigned its rights under the approved APD and lease back to Mr. Longwell. In July of 2004, he assigned his rights to Solenex, which, in May of 2013, asked that the suspension be lifted; the request was denied.

Meanwhile, the Forest Service con-cluded that a traditional cultural district

(TCD) of 90,000 acres existed on federal lands beyond the APD drill site, which was designated with the Blackfeet Tribes concurrence. Later, the tribe demanded expansion of the TCD. To appease the tribe, federal officials bankrolled the tribe and its consultants in generating multiple studies to expand the TCD to 120,000 and then 165,000 acres, thereby enveloping the drilling site.

Federal officials say they are helpless given the tribes position that no oil and gas drilling occur in the area due to its spiritual and religious power, but one federal official suggested that a $5 million payment would remove all objections. In fact, in 2013, the tribe published a slick, twelve page prospectus, Oil and Gas De-velopment Opportunities on its nearby tribal lands. For over two decades federal officials let the tribe have its way despite a Supreme Court 1988 opinion by Justice OConnor: Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of [a sacred] area those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

TheLitigator Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on! Page Two

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSS

WEB PAGE POLLVisitors to MSLFs web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to the

following question: Congress okayed federal land closures of over 5,000 acres, subject to its veto but the Constitution bars such a veto; is a withdrawal over 5,000 acres legal? Sixty seven percent (67%) said, No: Congress linked land withdrawal authority to the veto; so both provisions are null and void. Thirty three percent (33%) said, Yes: The law has a severability clause; therefore, the veto is removed but the authority remains.

Vote on the new question at MSLFs web site today! Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLFs precedent-setting,

nationally-significant litigation is to check MSLFs highly acclaimed web site. MSLFs web site is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updates on MSLFs Legal Cases and News Releases.

Did you know that you might be able to double your gift for free? Thousands of companies match their employees charitable contributions. Matching gifts play a key role in help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Please ask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your human resources or personnel department to see if your company will match your gift to MSLF. Then, each time you mail your gift, please include a matching gift form from your employer. MSLF will do the rest!

PENDLEYS VIEWThe Property Clause vests solely

in Congress power to manage federal lands; for almost 200 years, no single act delegated that power. Nonetheless, the president often temporarily with-drew public lands from operation of federal lands laws, which the Supreme Court upheld in 1915 as the exercise of his implied authority given Congresss acquiescence. Meanwhile, in 1910, Congress delegated authority to make some temporary withdrawals, but the Court declined to rule on whether that repealed the implied authority.

In 1970, the Public Land Law Review Commission, a creation of Congress, reported that withdrawals were uncontrolled and haphazard, and demanded Congress assert its constitutional authority by enacting legislation reserving unto itself exclu-sive authority to withdraw or other-wise set aside public land for specified limited-purpose uses. In 1976, Con-gress repealed 29 withdrawal statutes, overruled the Courts 1915 ruling, and revoked any and all implied with-drawal power. It delegated authority to make specific and limited withdrawals of less than 5,000 acres, but all larger withdrawals required that Congress be notifiedwith documentation as to the necessity for and impact of the withdrawaland that the withdrawal survive a one-House veto. In 1983, however, the Court struck down a dif-ferent one-House veto provision thus invalidating the check Congress sought to impose with its 1976 Act.

In challenging a million acres land withdrawal by the Obama adminis-tration, MSLF argues the withdrawal authority would not have existed but for the one-House veto and that, with the vetos unconstitutionality, the delegation of withdrawal authority is likewise null and void. That legal issue, which is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, could yield one of most decisive constraints on unlimited Executive power in the Republics history.

The Colorado Supreme Court, over the dissent of one justice and the abstention of another, declined to hear an appeal filed by a Colorado group that defends the rights of taxpayers. The TABOR Foundation had urged the court to review the August of 2014 Court of Appeals ruling in the groups appeal of a Colorado state district courts dismissal of a lawsuit against two Colorado bodies and their officials for violating TABOR (Colorado Constitu-tions Taxpayers Bill of Rights). In its 2012 lawsuit, the TABOR Foundation alleged its members should have been allowed to vote on $100 million in new taxes and $300 million in government bonds imposed by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise (CBE), a government-owned entity created in 2009 by the General Assembly with the Funding Advance-ments for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act (FASTER).

The suit named CBE and the Colorado Transportation Commission and its members and sought declaratory and

injunctive relief and refund of revenues plus interest. In a 2013 ruling, after a two-day trial, the district court held the CBE an exempt enterprise and its assessment a fee not a tax. In its petition, the TABOR Founda-

tion urged Colorados highest court to rule on what is a tax and what is a fee to ensure the rights of the people are protected.

In 2009, the Colorado General As-sembly passed FASTER, which provides for creation of the Colorado Bridge Enterprise, a government-owned entity chartered to repair and to maintain bridges in Colorado.

Three other lawsuits defending TABOR are at various stages in lower Colorado courts seeking a Colorado Supreme Court ruling.

FIRST OF FOUR TABOR CASES IS OVER

TheLitigator Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

A Colorado group that defends the rights of taxpayers sued two Colorado entities and their officials for violation of the Colorado Constitutions Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). The TABOR Foundation alleges in Denver County Court that its members should have been allowed to vote on whether a hospital provider fee could be imposed on Colorado hospitals. Since enactment in 2009, tens of millions of dollars and as much as a hundred million dollars have been collected by Colorados Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. Although federal law allows States to impose a healthcare assessment to pay for Medicaid services, regulations provide for taxes and not fees as

Colorado calls them to avoid TABOR. Also, although the 2009 act provided that the funds collected would be kept separate from the general fund,

in fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 some of these tax proceeds were put in the general fund. The Foundation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and refund of revenues collected,

with the payment of interest, as required by TABOR.

Contrary to holdings of the Colo-rado Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States that a fee is for services given, a Jefferson County hospital paid $2.1 million in taxes for no services. Ten Colorado hospitals also paid more in taxes than they re-ceived in services from the state.

Two ranching organizations, an Arizona ranch, and an Arizona rancher won a major victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when a three-judge panel, after cancelling the oral argument, affirmed a ruling by an Arizona federal district court that granted them summary judgment over a demand by environmental groups that grazing permits be revoked and then subjected to lengthy federal environmen-tal review. The groups claimed the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when it reauthorized permits that allow ranchers to graze their livestock on nearby federal lands as they have done for generations by not issuing full environmental impact statements (EISs) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to reissuing the permits. The Arizona Cattle Growers Association, the Public Lands Council, Orme Ranch, Inc., and Bert Teskey, all represented by MSLF, maintained that Congress made clear that no EISs are required. After the two groups dropped challenges to seven Forest Service deci-sions, the matter was briefed and argued. The district court upheld the agencys rul-ing as to seven of the eight decisions.

In fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Forest Service, without conducting environmental reviews pursuant to NEPA, reauthorized several grazing permits on lands managed by the Forest Service. In August of 2011, the Western Watersheds Project and the Center For Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit alleging that 17 of the reauthorizationsseven in the Co-conino National Forest in Arizona, three in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona, six in the Prescott National Forest in Arizona, and one in the Coronado National Forest in New Mexicoviolated NEPA. The lawsuit was filed despite the clear intent of Congress that the Forest Service is not required to do the reviews.

Beginning in 1995, Congress enacted legislation to address its concern that the inability of the Forest Service to complete NEPA analyses on expiring term grazing permits would delay renewal of the per-mits to the detriment of the western ranch-ers involved. Specifically, Congress sought to reduce the amount of documentation and expense required to conduct NEPA.

A Colorado man and a national gun rights group suffered a defeat before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the appeal of a Colorado federal district court ruling on Postal Service regulations; however, they were heartened by a bold dissent in their favor. In 2013, the district court struck as unconstitutional, a rule that bars firearms in Postal Service parking lots. The court held, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment [and the] parking lot adjacent to [a local Post Office] is not a sensitive place [such that] an absolute ban on firearms is substantially related to [Defendants] important public safety objective. Tab Bonidy, who is licensed to carry a handgun and carries a handgun for self-defense, must drive to Avon to

collect his mail, but he is barred by federal regulation from carrying a firearm, or parking his vehicle if it contains a firearm

in the lot. Mr. Bonidy asked that the regulation be withdrawn; the agency refused. Mr. Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights sued in 2010.

By 2-1, the pan-el ruled in favor

of the Postal Service, both as to the ban on guns in the parking lotthus overturning the district courts rulingand as to the ban on possession of firearms inside the post of-fice. Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented from the former, asserting that he would have upheld the right of citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights outside the home and would have held the parking lot ban violated that right because [District of Columbia v.] Heller demands more.

Page Three

TAXPAYERS SUE OVER HOSPITAL FEE

AZ RANCHERS WIN2ND AMENDMENT EARNS SPLIT RULING

TheLitigator Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

RONALD REAGAN, SAGEBRUSH REBEL - HIS UNTOLD HISTORYSagebrush Rebel: Reagans Battle

with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery 2013), by William Perry Pendley, tells what Reagan did, how those who followed diverted from his vision, and what America must do to restore its economy, its strength against its enemies, and its exceptionalism.

[Americas] energy boom ... would soon be bursting out all over if Obama would just do the nation a little favor. Repeat some Reagan history. [E]xcuse me, President Barack Obama, but please visit this book.

Jay AmbroseScripps Howard News Service

[T]argets of the new environmental religion will find lessons [including] how one principled man and his confidence in the power of American potential could flip the radical environmentalist narrative and make daily life better for all Americans.

J. Christian Adams, Esq.Author, Injustice, Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department

[Pendley] understands the goal of environmental extremists: gain control of policy in order to force Americans to reduce their standard of living by shrinking the nations economy. [These] zealots have turned many [federal laws] into tools of social control.

Peter HannafordReagan associate and biographer

Reagan believed uniquely in Americas future and its young people; his policies on energy and the environment ensured prosperity for decades.

Ron Robinson, Young Americas Foundation and The Reagan Ranch

Sagebrush Rebel is one of the most important, insightful, and inspirational books about Ronald Reagans domestic policies since An American Life by President Reagan himself. It is a must read for those interested in all that the President accomplished.

Edwin Meese, IIIReagans Attorney General

The story of Ronald Reagans policies on natural resources and the environment has never been told, or has been distorted by his political enemies. Sagebrush Rebel corrects the record for the first time, with relevant insights for our policy debates over resource management today.

Steven F. HaywardReagan biographer and author, The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989

Ronald Reagana life-long conservationist and environmentalistbelieved people are part of the ecosystem. That was heresy to those who Reagan called environmental extremists, so they lie about his record. The truth is in Sagebrush Rebel.

Mark R. LevinRadio talk show host and author, The Liberty Amendments

The obsession of environmentalists is regulating private property, controlling growthboth human and economicand trying to predict and alter the future. Sagebrush Rebel reveals President Reagan would have none of that.

Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor

The progressive war on western civi-lization is never-ending. We must take up Reagans fight to preserve the American way of life. Sagebrush Rebel shows us how. Buy it now!

Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist, best-selling author, and Fox News contributor

Page Four

Warriors for the West

Sagebrush Rebel the audiobook is FREE with a $25.00 contribution to MSLF; supplies are limited; see the COUPON on page 5.

If you liked Reagan, you will love Sagebrush Rebel. It is the perfect gift! Contact MSLF for pricing of copies bought in large quantity.

KEEP READING! The Litigator, MSLFs quarterly newsletter, is the indispensable tool for staying informed regarding the latest in MSLFs precedent-setting, nationally-significant, public-interest litigation. The Litigator is mailed on the first of February, May, August, and November. Ensure that you keep receiving The Litigator by contributing $25 annually.

NOW AN AUDIOBOOK! Sagebrush Rebel becomes evenmore relevant with each passing dayand the news from across the country. No need to miss out on this amazing untold history of Ronald Reagan; it is now available as an audiobook read by the author himself. FREE with a $25 contribution to MSLF.

Prominently displayed at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library

TheLitigator Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on! Page Five

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) Is A Nonprofit, Public-Interest Legal Foundation, That Is A 501(c)(3) Organization,Since Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions To MSLF Are Tax Deductible!

MSLF CANNOT REST; ITS ROLE ESSENTIAL TO REMAINING FREE

In 2015, MSLF will have been going to court for 38 years, fighting to compel compliance with the commands of the Constitution and federal law to ensure that America remains a nation of laws. At no time during these nearly four decades has the need for MSLF to go to court on behalf of those who could not afford legal representation been lessened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy has grown and as federal laws have become more far-reach-ing and intrusive, MSLFs caseload has increased dramatically. That is obvious from a review of the scores of MSLF cases all across America.

Your Support Is VitalIf there is one lesson MSLF has learned

over the past 38 years, it is that, regard-less of which party occupies the White House or controls Congress, the threat to liberty remains and MSLF must be ready, willing, and able to go to court to defend freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once said, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. One of the prices that must be paid for MSLF to remain vigilant is the price that tens of thousands of Americans pay annually by making their tax-deductible contributions to MSLF and its aggressive litigation in defense of freedom.

The support of MSLF by tens of thou-sands of Americans committed to free-dom could not be more important. Your support will ensure that MSLF remains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and the judge orders the federal government to pay attorneys fees and expenses).

MSLFs sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of those who support its aggressive litigation program.

MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makes the contributions it receives tax deductible.

MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MSLFs commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nation of laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.

MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution, strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hire legal coun-sel to protect their rights.

Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share of oneshard-earned income.Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.Although many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have been elimi-

nated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by charitable giving remain! Income Tax A person may deduct up to 50 percent of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that limit is 30 percent for gifts of appreciated property. Itemized deductions made during 2015, including charitable deductions, are reduced for individuals earning $258,250 (married couples earning $309,900) or more. Please consult your tax adviser.

Estate Tax A person who dies in 2015 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,430,000; however, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Because 2015 federal estate taxes over $5,430,000 range from 15 percent to 40 percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $400 in federal taxes. Please consult your tax adviser. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLFs brokerageaccount DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528, Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100; Denver, CO 80202. (Joanna

Heckman, CFP-Vice President, Financial Consultant; 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5911). Please notify MSLF BEFORE making the transfer; there is no way to identify a stock donor without prior notification. Thank you!

Problem u

Solution uReason u

The Means u

GIFT: $ _____________ o$1000 o$500 o$250 o$100 o$50 o$25o Check Payable to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF)o Credit Card ___MC ___Visa ___Discover ___AmEx Credit Card # _________________________________________________________________ CVV# (3 digit code on back of card) ___________________ Exp. Date _______________ Signature _____________________________________________________________________NAME (Please print) _______________________________________________________________ADDRESS ________________________________________________________________________CITY ______________________________________ STATE ____________ ZIP _______________ PHONE __________________________________________________________________________EMAIL ___________________________________________________________________________o Yes, I want to help MSLF in its defense of constitutional liberties and the rule of law.o I made my contribution for $50, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel.o I have ADDED $10 to my $50 gift; send me an autographed Sagebrush Rebel.o I made my contribution for $25, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel, the audiobook.

Stock uTransferInformation

TheLitigator Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on! Page Six

Two families sued by Montana Indian Tribes in Montana federal district court prevailed in their efforts to have the lawsuit filed against them dismissed when the district court granted their mo-tion. Robert and Judy Harms of Hot Springs and Wayne and Betty Stickel of Lonepine in north-western Montana, whose property is in the Flathead Indian Reservation, were sued by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in February of 2014; both are represented by MSLF.

In their lawsuit, the Tribes claim all water and land within the boundaries of the Reservation and thus challenge the validity of the original homestead-ers patentssigned by the Presi-dentand seek to acquire those lands

and their water rights. The Tribes also challenge a federal law that assigns primary responsibility for adjudicat-ing and administrating water rights

to State and not federal courtsthe McCarran Amendment of 1952. The families urged the lawsuit be dismissed. Federal defen-dants, who de-layed a response to the lawsuit for

months, moved for an indefinite stay but they failed.

The 1.3 million acre Flathead Indian Reservation is home to the Confeder-ated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, which include the Salish, Pend dOreille, and Kootenai. Established by the Treaty of Hellgate in 1855, the Reservation is in Lake County, Sanders, Missoula, and Flathead counties.

In a victory for all Americans, the Su-preme Court of the United States reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and held that a regula-tory program adopted in the Great Depres-sion caused the taking of a California familys crops. MSLF had filed friend of the court briefs urging review and disput-ing a panels ruling that Marvin and Laura Horne, husband and wife, who produce raisins as Raisin Valley Farms of Kerman, California, may not receive just compen-sation. Thus, the family made a second successful appearance at the high court.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the family could raise a constitutional defense against federal agency action. On remand, the Ninth Circuit held there was not a taking of the familys raisins because real property was not involved, the family did not lose all the value of its property, and the family received a public benefit. The Court, by 8-1, reversed that ruling and held that nei-ther the history nor the text of the Takings Clause was limited to real property; it was meant to protect all property from govern-mental interference. By 5-3, the Court held that the amount of just compensation had been determined by the fine assessed by the federal government; therefore, there was no need to remand the case for any further proceedings to determine the amount of compensation.

Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) issues a Raisin Marketing Order (RMO), which restricts the amount of raisins from a crop year that raisin handlers in California may sell on the open market. Handlers must separate raisins into free tonnage, which they may sell, and reserve tonnage, which they then transfer to the Raisin Ad-ministrative Committee (RAC) for it to sell in secondary and non-competitive markets to fund its administration.

The Hornes have farmed raisins in California since 1969. In addition to han-dling raisins produced by their farm, they processed raisins for other local growers, but did not comply with the RMO and did not transfer title to a portion of their crops to the RAC and were fined $695,226.

A New Mexico woman, two New Mexico landowners, and a New Mexico trade association welcomed the repeal by Mora County of its 2013 ordinance that violated their constitutional rights by barring energy development and the resultant order by a New Mexico federal district court dismissing their law-suit. Mary L. Vermillion, JAY Land Ltd. Co., Yates Ranch Property LLC, and the Independent Petro-leum Association of New Mexico (IPANM) filed a lawsuit in November of 2013 charging that Mora Countys ordinance violated their rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and corresponding rights under New Mexicos Constitution. The ordinance also denied them their right to invoke state laws that preempt the countys ability to enact or enforce its ordinance. The plaintiffs sought

declaratory and permanent injunctive relief from the unconstitutional actions. In No-

vember of 2014, on behalf of its clients, MSLF filed a motion arguing there were no factual issues and that they should prevail as a matter of law.

In 1978, New Mexico passed the New Mexico Oil and Gas Act, which created the Oil Conservation Com-mission and Oil Conservation Division that are vested with complete jurisdiction, author-ity and control regarding the development of oil or gas. The Division regulates oil and

natural gas activity so as to protect, among other things, fresh water, public health, safety and the environment and issues rules for safety procedures for drilling and production of oil and gas wells.

Asserting a local bill of rights, despite the preeminence of State law as to oil and gas, Mora County passed its ordinance on April 29, 2013.

TRIBES WATER LAWSUIT IS DISMISSED

FRUIT = PROPERTYMORA COUNTY ANNULS ITS ORDINANCE

TheLitigator Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

Pendley Is In WSJ

Page Seven

LEGAL

ACTION

NOTABLE

QUOTES

nThe Supreme Court of the United States, consistent with a friend of the court brief filed by MSLF, which won a landmark civil rights case before the Court, agreed to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that upheld the right of the University of Texas Austin to grant admission on the basis of race.

nContrary to a friend of the court brief by MSLF, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that express language adopted by Congress did not mean what it said, but meant something else entirely, which led Justice Scalia to declare ObamaCare should be called SCOTUScare.

n Wyoming ranchers express their dismay with the ruling of a Wyoming federal district court dismissing the

Im glad you are helping people who are being hurt by some of the rules[;] some people or organizations in our U.S. government have been overstepping their authority.Eva R. JohnsonHarrold, SD

I enjoy reading your summary judg-ments each month.Paige PetersonWinslow, AZ

We appreciate all you do in these diminishing days of freedom.Eldon Buck BuchnerBaker City, OR

Thank you for the awesome work you guys do.Michael YukichHomewood, IL

Thank you for all your hard work to support agriculture.Katie MinklerIgnacio, CO

And a big battle it is. Thank you all for waging it.Chard P. Smith, Jr.Highlands Ranch, CO

[Sagebrush Rebel] is a great insight into government. The current times make this book important because we are suffer-ing the same economic malaise today under this president that we did in the 70s under Carter.Preston DrewCarnation, WA

States lawsuit to compel federal officials to comply with the wild horse statute; the Wyoming Stock Growers Association had filed a brief in support of Wyoming.

n MSLF filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit urging that it reject the use of race in awarding highway construction contracts.

n Consistent with MSLFs amicus curiae brief, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review a case brought by two Texans challenging the manner in which state senate districts are apportioned. MSLF argued that Texas created voting districts that under represent eligible voters but over represent non-eligible voters in violation of the constitutional principle of one man, one vote.

n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction granted by a Texas federal district court barring federal officials from implementing President

Obamas illegal immigration edict. MSLF filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the United States had failed to comply with federal law and that the States that filed the lawsuit would prevail.

n MSLF filed a friend of the court brief in support of Utah property owners who prevailed in a lawsuit challenging abuse of the Endangered Species Act regarding the prairie dog. Pacific Legal Foundation represents the Utah families who filed the precedent-setting lawsuit.

Shawn Regan didnt need an apoc-ryphal script of a John Wayne film to describe the showdown brewing in the American West . . . between the states and the feds (The U.S. Department of Land-Hogging, op-ed, April 3). Ronald Reagan said it better: From the Rockies, across the deserts and all the way to the Pacific the western states are voicing their angry resentment of a powerful absentee landlordthe Federal government, which has overlaid the West with controls and regulations as irksome as barb wire was in an earlier day. Reagan called himself a sagebrush rebel.

There was no less federal land, but there was less acrimony because Reagan sought to restore the division of govern-mental responsibilities between the na-tional government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitu-tion and to reverse the extreme environ-mental policies of President Carter. The rebellion is back today because President Obama governs as President Carter did. To cite one example, the presidents Inte-rior Secretary Sally Jewell travels the West threatening westerners that if they dont embrace federal legislation locking up more land from multiple [economic and recreational] use, President Obama will issue more national monument decrees to close such lands by fiat. No wonder there is a new sagebrush rebellion.

William Perry Pendley, PresidentMountain States Legal FoundationLetters to the Editor

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage

PAID

Denver, CO

Permit No. 847

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERWilliam Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERSteven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENTADMINISTRATIONJanice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEJohn J. Blomstrom, WY; ChairmanDon Sparks, TX; Vice ChairmanFrank S. Priestley, ID; SecretaryRoy G. Cohee, WY; TreasurerErnest Angelo, TXStephen M. Brophy, AZRoger Cymbaluk, NDJohn R. Gibson, NVSamuel D. Haas, NML. Jerald Sheffels, WA

WYOMING RANCHERS SECURE HOSPITALS AID VERSUS EPAThe Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation won the support

of Riverton Memorial Hospital in its federal appeals court battle to reverse a decision by the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) that granted the Northern Arapahoe Tribe and the Eastern Shoshone Tribeof the Wind River Indian Reservation in Fremont and Hot Springs Counties in west central Wyomingjurisdiction over the City of Riverton and its residents. In February of 2014, the Farm Bureau, some of whose members live, work, and own property in and near Riverton, peti-tioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit contesting the EPAs December of 2013 decision to grant Tribe-as-State status under the federal Clean Air Act, which followed a similar action by the State of Wyoming.

In its motion to file an amicus curiae brief, Riverton Memorial Hospital states that it is a non-Indian entity, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, but nonetheless, on February 18, 2015, was sued by a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe for medical malprac-tice in the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Court. According to its twenty-one page brief, which includes 261 pages of ap-pendices, the hospital must spend tens of thousands of dollars and years to extricate itself from a court that has few rules and

statutes and no published case law, which renders everything from basic procedural matters, to substantive law, to legal

exposure unascertainable. Worse, because the tribal court impermissibly interprets its jurisdiction very broadly and imposes strict and onerous tribal exhaustion requirements, the hospital will have to litigate the medical malpractice case on the merits and appeal to the tribal appellate court. Only then will it be able to appeal to a federal district court.

In December of 2008, both Tribes sought Tribe-as-State status under 301(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which provides an express congressional del-egation to tribes of the EPAs authority to regulate air quality on fee lands located within the exterior boundaries of a reservation. The tribes expended 82 of their 87-page application arguing that they possessed jurisdiction over Riverton.

More recently, the Farm Bureau filed its reply brief and urged the appeals court to invalidate the

EPAs ruling, arguing that, in 1905, Congress made crystal clear its intent to diminish the Reservation and nothing can change the plain meaning of those words. In its opening brief in December of 2014, the Farm Bureau argued that the EPAs decision ignores more than one hundred years of actions by Congress, Wyoming, the Tribes, and rulings by federal and state courts including the Supreme Court of the United States.