United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 16, 2022 Decided July 18, 2023 No. 20-5008 AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, APPELLEE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., APPELLEES SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS COUNCIL, ET AL., APPELLANTS Consolidated with 20-5009, 20-5010, 20-5011, 22-5019, 22-5020, 22-5021 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:17-cv-00441) (No. 1:17-cv-00280) (No. 1:15-cv-01419) (No. 1:16-cv-01599) (No. 1:16-cv-01602) 2 Brian C. Toth, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for federal appellants. With him on the briefs were Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert J. Lundman, Attorney. Mark R. Haag, Attorney, entered an appearance. Kristen L. Boyles argued the cause for appellants Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, et al. With her on the briefs was Susan Jane M. Brown. Patti A. Goldman entered an appearance. Julia K. Forgie and Katherine Desormeau were on the brief for amicus curiae Natural Resources Defense Council in support of appellants. David O. Bechtold, Per A. Ramfjord, and Julie A. Weis argued the causes for appellees. With them on the brief were Sarah Ghafouri, Jason T. Morgan, Ariel Stavitsky, and Caroline Lobdell. Frank D. Garrison, Clerk M. Neily III, and Damien M. Schiff were on the brief for amici curiae Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute in support of appellees. 3 Before: HENDERSON and PAN, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In these consolidated appeals we face the question whether overlapping statutes that affect more than two million acres of federally owned forest land in southwestern Oregon are reconcilable and therefore operative. The appeals arise from three sets of cases filed by an association of fifteen Oregon counties and various trade associations and timber companies. Two of the cases challenge Proclamation 9564, through which the President expanded the boundaries of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Two others challenge resource management plans that the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a bureau within the United States Department of the Interior (Interior), developed to govern the use of the forest land. The final case seeks an order compelling the Interior Secretary to offer a certain amount of the forest’s timber for sale each year. The district court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs in all five cases. As detailed infra, we reverse. I. BACKGROUND A. THE O & C ACT We begin in 1866, when the Congress authorized a grant of public land to two railroad companies to facilitate the construction of a rail and telegraph line between Portland, Oregon and San Francisco, California. Act of July 25, 1866, ch. 242, 14 Stat. 239; see also Clackamas Cnty. v. McKay, 219 F.2d 479, 481–82 (D.C. Cir. 1954) (recounting grant’s history), vacated as moot, 349 U.S. 909 (1955). For each mile of railroad the companies completed, they received every odd numbered, alternate section of public land “to the amount of 4 twenty alternate sections per mile (ten on each …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals