California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co.

20 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. RINEHART

    Respondent’s Petition for Review

    Filed November 17, 2014

    Wefirst note that section 5653 requiring a permit from the state before persons may conduct suction dredge mining operations does not, standing alone, contravene federal law. (See Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. 572 [94 L.Ed.2d 57].) Granite Rock establishes that the requirement of a state permit to conduct certain activities on federal land is not categorically prohibited.

  2. PEOPLE v. RINEHART

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed March 23, 2015

    In view of these flaws, South Dakota Miningis not persuasive precedent, and should not be followed. C. The Court of Appeal’s “Commercial Impracticability” Test Has No Foundation and Is Unadministrable Instead of asking whether California’s moratorium renders compliance with federal law impossible, the Court of Appeal held that California’s law would be preemptedif it made mining “‘commercially 399impracticable’” on a particular miner’s land. (Slip Opn., p. 19, quoting Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 587.) The “commercially impracticable” phrase is based on a misunderstanding of Granite Rock, and would prove unadministrable in practice.

  3. PEOPLE v. RINEHART

    Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

    Filed April 22, 2016

    However, the Court found that land use planning and environmental regulation, while theoretically could overlap in some cases, are distinct activities, capable of differentiation. Jd. at 588, 107 S.Ct. 1419. “Land use planning in essence choosesparticular uses for the land; environmental regulation, at its core, does not mandate particular uses of the land but requires only that, howeverthe land is used, damage to the environmentis kept within prescribed limits.”

  4. PEOPLE v. RINEHART

    Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed June 11, 2015

    BLM didso in response to the express urging of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Granite Rock, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 583; Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management, 64 Fed.Reg. 6422, 6427 (Feb. 9, 1999) [proposedrule, citing Granite Rock].) The agencies have determined that Congress’s “full purposes and objectives’” (Wyeth, supra, 555 U.S.at p. 577) will still be accomplishedif states impose greater levels of protection, or even if states ban one kind of mining that may 17 render some claims unprofitable.

  5. PEOPLE v. RINEHART

    Respondent’s Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed December 18, 2014

    The Ninth Circuit later “applied [Ventura County’s] reasoning” whenit found preemption in Granite Rock Company v. California Coastal Commission (9th Cir. 1985) 768 F.2d 1077, 1082. But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in Granite Rock and held there was no preemption. (480 U.S. 572.) That Rinehart relies on reasoning the Supreme Court later (by extension) reversed speaks volumes about the tenuousnessofhis position. 3. Rinehart portrays various federal laws as evincing a purposeto promote mining, with only a limited role for state law.

  6. The United States of America v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Otero et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re First MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 4, 2014

    must yield to any valid exercise of federal power.”); Granite Rock, 480 U.S. 572 (subjecting State regulation of private mining operations on Federal land to preemption analysis). Case 2:12-cv-00120-MCA-SMV Document 71 Filed 06/04/14 Page 44 of 50 42 affirmatively displace federal jurisdiction over Federal property.

  7. Save Our Cabinets et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support re

    Filed November 21, 2016

    While mining has been accorded a special place in our laws relating to public lands, there is no doubt that mining activities are subject to regulation to protect the environment. California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock, 480 U.S. 572 (1987). The Mining Act of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54, is still the basic law governing mining activities, as modified by ensuing statutes and as applied through Forest Service rules and regulations.

  8. In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., et al., Respondents,v.New York State Department of State et al., Appellants.

    Brief

    Filed October 19, 2016

    See, e.g., 15 C.F.R. § 930.53(a) (a State’s authority reaches only those activities identified by its CMP as ones the State “wishes to review”); Cal. Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 590 (1987) (“[F]or an activity to be subject to CZMA consistency review, the activity must be on a list that the State provides . . . .”). This disposes of NYSDOS’s repeated and misdirected reliance (e.g., Br.

  9. IN RE ISAIAH W.

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed January 12, 2015

    As such, its actions are superceded by ICWA’s preemption ofstate law in this regard. (See Cakfornia Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. (1987) 480 U.S. 572, 581 [state law is pre-empted to the extent it conflicts with federal law].) 16 Federal preemption ofstate law under the supremacyclause of the United States Constitution,article VI, clause 2, “may beeither express or implied, and ‘is compelled whether Congress' commandis explicitly stated in the statute's language or implicitly containedin its structure and purpose.”

  10. IN RE ISAIAH W.

    Appellant’s Petition for Review

    Filed September 17, 2014

    Its actions are superceded by ICWA’s preemption ofstate law in this regard. (See Cahfornia Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. (1987) 480 U.S. 572, 581 [state law is pre-empted to the extentit actually conflicts with federal law]; In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 469 [recognizing “[t]he courts of this state must yield to governing federal law.” in juvenile dependency appeals involving ICWAissues].