Summaries of Selected Opinions
| Publication year | 2017 |
| Pages | 82 |
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-8068. Wyoming v. Zinke. 9/21/2017. D.Wyo. Judge Briscoe. Fracking Regulation—New President’s Policy—Rescission of Regulation— Prudential Ripeness.
Various interested parties challenged a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulation governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on federal lands. The district court ruled that the BLM lacked statutory authority to promulgate the fracking regulation. The litigants supporting the regulation appealed. While the appeal was pending, the BLM asked the court to hold the appeal in abeyance pending further rulemaking pursuant to the new president’s executive order. The executive order directed the BLM to proceed with a proposal to rescind the fracking regulation, which the BLM did, with the public comment period to close on September 25, 2017. Given the recent rulemaking activity, the Tenth Circuit considered whether to proceed on the merits of the appeal.
Courts have an obligation to hear and decide cases before them. But the doctrine of prudential ripeness is designed to prevent courts, by avoiding premature adjudication, from becoming entangled in abstract disagreements over administrative policies and to protect agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized. Although the appeal presented a clear legal issue, the disputed issue forming the basis for the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction is currently a “moving target”; this constitutes an unusual circumstance requiring the conclusion that the appeals are unfit for review. Deciding the merits would waste judicial resources. In addition, withholding review would not cause hardship because doing so would maintain the status quo.
The Tenth Circuit then decided to dismiss, rather than abate, the appeal, because the rule-rescinding process could take months or years and there would be nothing for the district court to do upon remand but wait for the BLM to finalize its rule.
The appeals were dismissed, the district court’s judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the underlying action without prejudice.
No. 16-8117. United States v. Snyder. 9/21/2017. D.Wyo. Judge Briscoe. Armed Career Criminal Act—28 USC § 2255 Motion—Timeliness—Procedural Default—Merits.
Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court enhanced his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had two prior convictions for burglary of two residences and a prior conviction of a controlled substance offense.
On direct appeal, defendant argued that the ACCA did not apply to him because his prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial