Supreme Court to Hear Western Lands Fight
ROBERT GEHRKE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Environmental groups suing to keep off-road vehicles off pristine Western lands were dealt a setback Monday as the Supreme Court agreed to consider the government's argument that the case is invalid.

The court's decision to hear the case jeopardizes an appeals court ruling favorable to the environmental groups.

"This is the latest step in the administration's plan to dismantle public lands protections and the protection of Americas most stunning and spectacular landscapes," said Steve Bloch, attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The case raises the question of whether the public can sue a department of the federal government for failing to fully implement a congressional mandate.

The Bush administration maintains that an agency's daily activities - such as managing federal land - cannot be challenged in court.

The law does not allow courts to "entertain challenges to anything and everything that an agency may do, or fail to do, in the conduct of its business," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told justices in a filing.

The case is expected to go to the justices next spring.

Environmental groups already suffered a setback this year when Interior Secretary Gale Norton struck a deal with Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt to discontinue protections for 2.6 million acres of potential wilderness in Utah and more land scattered through the West. Next month, the BLM is scheduled to begin leasing the Utah land for oil and gas drilling.

"They're coming at it from both sides," said Earthjustice attorney Jim Angell.

In 1999, SUWA and other environmental groups sued the Interior Department, claiming it had failed to protect five areas containing steep redrock slot canyons, and sandstone buttes and plateaus that were being studied for wilderness designation: Parunuweap Canyon, Moquith Mountain, Sids Mountain, Behind the Rocks and Indian Creek.

The suit said off-road vehicles were damaging the areas, even though Congress had directed the department to protect the wilderness.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the department could be sued for allowing damage to the lands. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco came to a similar conclusion in a Montana case.

The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a Western pro-land-use group, and other organizations had also asked the court to reconsider the 10th Circuit ruling, and will likely support the government's argument.

Paul Turcke, an attorney for the coalition, said the environmentalists' argument would enable group to sue the government if they don't like an agency's decision, regardless of the rationale behind it.

Angell said the case could have implications beyond wilderness. If the court strikes down the 10th Circuit ruling, citizens could not sue the government for failing to comply with congressionally mandated housing programs, or any other general requirement by Congress.

The case is Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 03-101.