MSLF BATTLES EPAS EXTRAORDINARY EDICT

Winter 2015

WYOMING CITY NOT INDIAN COUNTRY

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, astonished with the decision of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
that the Wind River Indian Reservation
includes the town of
Riverton, urged the
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit
in Denver to reverse
the agencys ruling.
MSLFs brief followed
the lawsuit (styled a
petition for review)
filed on behalf of the
organization in February of 2014, days after
the same challenge
filed by the State of
Wyoming.
In December 2013,
the EPA granted the
Northern Arapahoe
Tribe and the Eastern
Shoshone Tribeboth
of the Wind River
Indian Reservation
in Fremont and
Hot Springs Counties in west central
WyomingTribe-as-State status under
the federal Clean Air Act. In so doing,
however, the EPA also granted the Tribes
jurisdiction over the City of Riverton,
Wyoming and its residents. The Farm
Bureau, some of whose members live,
work, and own property in Riverton or
in the surrounding area, argues the EPAs
decision ignores more than one hundred
years of actions by Congress, Wyoming,
the Tribes, and rulings by a host of federal
and state courts including the Supreme
Court of the United States.
In December 2008, both Tribes sought
Tribe-as-State status under 301(d)(2)
of the Clean Air Act, which provides an

express congressional delegation 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. Because their
application ignored
a host of federal statutes and federal and
state court rulings,
in 2009, the State of
Wyoming, the Wyoming Farm Bureau
Federation, and
other entities filed
comments opposing
the application.
The Reservation,
which is shared
by the Tribes, was
established in 1868.
In 1904, the Tribes
signed an agreement
with the federal government ceding 1.480
million acres of land, which were to be
opened for sale under the homestead,
townsite, coal, and mineral laws, which
was entered into with the United States
Indian Inspector in exchange for per
capita payments to tribal members and
capital improvement projects inside the
diminished reserve or Reservation. In
1905, Congress ratified the 1904 agreement with the Tribes.
In 1906, the ceded lands were opened
for settlement by a Presidential Proclamation and allotments were sold to
non-Indians in an area that today makes
up Riverton. In 1939, some unsold ceded
lands were restored to the Reservation,

MOUNTAIN
STATES
LEGAL
FOUNDATION
Executive Offices:
2596 South Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80227
303-292-2021
Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org
but a significant portion was not. Riverton is located wholly on lands ceded in
the 1904 agreement and never restored to
the two Indian Tribes. Over the decades,
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the
Wyoming Supreme Court wrote of lands
formerly embraced in the [Reservation],
of the diminished reservation, and of
lands that were ceded, granted, and
relinquished. Moreover, challenges by
tribal members of their convictions in state
court for crimes committed in Riverton
putative Indian countrywere rejected,
once with amicus support for the State of
Wyoming from the United States.
In its brief, MSLF argues that the EPAs
boundary determination is arbitrary and
capricious because the agency both failed
to consider the factual history of the reservation by failing to consider relevant facts
and by evaluating properly all the flawed
information presented to it and violated
its own regulations as to the manner in
which a grant such as that sought by the
Tribes may be made. MSLF also sought
oral arguments before the Tenth Circuit.

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

Page One

MSLF TAXES ILLEGITIMATE IRS RULE

individuals whose household income is

In a landmark case now before the Suless than 400% of the poverty line and
preme Court of the United States, MSLF
who are enrolled through an Exchange
urged the Court to overturn regulations
established by the State under
adopted by the Internal Revsection 1311 of the Patient
enue Service (IRS) that conflict
Protection and Affordable
with the express language set
Care Act... In addition, the
forth in the federal law populaw uses the term established
larly known as ObamaCare.
by the state only when it
On behalf of its members who
refers to State-established Exreside and work in every State
changes. When referring both
and believe strongly both
to the federal Exchange and
that the Founding Fathers
State-established Exchanges,
created a republic, in which
the Act uses the specific
the federal government is one
phrase Exchange established
of limited and enumerated
under this Act.
powers, and that separation
Nonetheless, because fewer
of powers is at the heart of the
than
twenty states and the DisU.S. Constitution, MSLF ar2010 by National Review, Inc.
Reprinted by permission
trict of Columbia have set up
gued in a hard-hitting brief
health care exchangesthe fedthat the IRS has no authority
eral government operates an exchange
to reverse a provision set forth explicitly
in the Affordable Care Act. In its brief,
in the other statesin May 2012, the IRS
promulgated regulations authorizing tax
MSLF noted that, since its creation in
credits to individuals who are enrolled
1977, it has litigated to preserve separaeither through a State-established Extion of powers by ensuring that executive
change or the federal Exchange estabagencies do not exceed the authority
lished by the U.S. Department of Health
granted to them by Congress.
and Human Services.
ObamaCare authorizes tax credits to

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSS

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 helping MSLF fight its court battles. Please
ask if your employer has a matching

WEB PAGE POLL

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!

Visitors to MSLFs website at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to

the following question: Under a 1937 law a federal agency sets the amount of
raisins handlers must give the agency to sell to support raisin advocacy; few
handlers get paid back. Is that right? One hundred percent (100%) said, No:
This constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation by federal
officials. Zero percent (0%) said, Yes: Raisins are taken, not realty, and sometimes money is returned; the public always benefits.
Vote on the new question at MSLFs website today!
Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLFs precedent-setting, nationally-significant litigation is to check MSLFs highly acclaimed website. MSLFs
website is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for
updates on MSLFs Legal Cases and News Releases.

PENDLEYS VIEW

There is a reason so many citizens

who reach the Supreme Court of the
United States in their battles with the
federal government and emerge to face
the reporters are elderly, white-haired
widows. Fighting the worlds largest
law firm is like Waiting for Godot, but
worse; Samuel Becketts absurdist play
was fiction but the ludicrous lengths
to which federal lawyers go to avoid
judgment day is all too real. Stanley K.
Mann of Colorado, now 82, spent 20
years awaiting that day.
In November of 1981, Mr. Mann
and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) entered into a 10-year lease for
geothermal resources on federal lands
near Las Cruces, New Mexico. He soon
made a valuable discovery and began
paying federal royalties while he spent
years and over a million dollars to
commercialize his discovery. Nonetheless, in 1994, as a result of bureaucratic
incompetence, Mr. Manns lease was
canceled, which Mr. Mann discovered
in 1996. Incredibly, federal officials
refused to do the right thing so, in 1998,
Mr. Mann sued.
In September of 2002, the Court of
Federal Claims ruled against him, but,
in June 2003, a mere 24 days after oral
arguments before the appeals court,
that ruling was reversed. A trial was
held in November of 2005, post-trial
briefing completed in March of 2006,
and a nearly million dollar judgment
awarded him in April of 2009. In
August of 2009, he filed an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) application
for attorneys fees and non-taxable
expenses. Finally, in July of 2014, after
numerous pleas that the court act on
his application, including a notice
citing his advancing years and nearly
two decades seeking justice, the court
awarded him nearly a third of a million
dollars. Four months later, Mr. Mann
received his award.
Godot has come for Mr. Mann, but
thousands of other citizens still wait.

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

Page Two

MICHIGAN LANDOWNERS APPEAL LAWLESS AGENCY RULING

Two Michigan landowners in the

Wolverine States Upper Peninsula appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit the
ruling of a Michigan
federal district court
that dismissed their
lawsuit against the
U.S. Forest Service
and its officials for
barring use of their
waterfront property.
David A. and Pamela
F. Herr of Watersmeet in Gogebic County contendin the
complaint they filed in the federal district
court for the Western District of Michigan,
Northern Divisionthe Forest Service
illegally denies them use of Crooked Lake,
a right guaranteed by Michigan law. Plus,
argue the Herrs, the district court in which
they filed their lawsuit previously ruled on
this issue, holding that the Forest Service
may not deny riparian owners their rights
on Crooked Lake, a lawsuit filed and won

by MSLF on behalf of Herrs neighbors.

The Herrs vacationed on Crooked Lake
annually since the
1990s and bought
their property in
2010. The Herrs
challenge the district courts ruling
that their lawsuit
was untimely even
though it came in
response to a July
2013 letter from the
Forest Service.
MSLF appealed
because the courts ruling that its clients
lawsuit was not timely is in error because
the Forest Services July 2013 letter to them
constitutes final agency action that is subject to judicial review because the agency
has no authority to restrict their right to
use their property. Plus, the Forest Service
did not enforce its ban until then.
Crooked Lake is a large, inland lake,
95% of which lies within the Sylvania
Wilderness Area, which is part of the Ot-

tawa National Forest. The area was added

to the National Wilderness Preservation
System in 1987 by the Michigan Wilderness Act, which preserved valid existing rights. Under Michigan law those
include the right of riparian owners to use
an inland lakes surface for recreational
activities such as boating and fishing, so
long as their use does not interfere with the
reasonable use of the lake by other riparian
owners. There are ten other private lakefront properties on Crooked Lake.
In Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 988 F.Supp
1055 (1997), in which MSLF represented
Kathy Stupak-Thrall and Bodil and
Michael Gajewski, owners of two other
Crooked Lake properties, the district court
ruled the Forest Service lacked authority to
restrict the riparian owners from exercising
their rights to use motorboats on Crooked
Lake. At issue was an attempt by the
Forest Service to limit motorboat use to
motorboats with electric motors with a
maximum size of 24 volts or 48 pounds of
thrust. The agency says the ruling does
not apply to or protect the Herrs.

NEW MEXICO COUNTY MAY NOT BAN USE OF PRIVATE LAND

A New Mexico woman, two New

Mexico landowners, and a New Mexico
trade association urged a New Mexico
federal district court to grant them summary judgment against Mora County
and its officials for violating their constitutional rights in adopting an ordinance
that bars future energy development. In
a late 2013 civil rights lawsuit filed by
MSLF, Mary L. Vermillion, JAY Land Ltd.
Co., Yates Ranch Property LLC, and the
Independent Petroleum Association of
New Mexico (IPANM) argue that Mora
Countys ordinance violates their rights
under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
and corresponding rights under New
Mexicos Constitution. The ordinance
also denies them their right to invoke
state laws that preempt the countys authority to enact or enforce its ordinance.
Asserting that there are no factual issues
and that they should prevail as a matter
of law, the plaintiffs seek both declaratory and permanent injunctive relief from

Mora Countys unconstitutional actions.

New Mexico has been a major
producer of oil and natural gas since hydrocarbons were discovered in the State
in the 1920s; they are a lynchpin of the
States economy and are
essential for its continued
fiscal health. In 2012, New
Mexico derived more than
27 percent of its general fund revenues from
taxes and royalties on oil,
natural gas, and carbon
dioxide production,
which, through the years,
have contributed over 90
percent of the principal
in the Severance Tax and
Land Grant Permanent
Funds, the earnings on which are used
to fund the common schools, specific
education or charities and institutions,
and other state governmental operations. Other petroleum tax receipts go
directly into the States general budget.

More than 88,000 New Mexican citizens

are employed directly by the oil and gas
industry.
In 1978, New Mexico passed the
New Mexico Oil and Gas Act, which
created the Oil Conservation Commission and Oil
Conservation Division that
are vested with complete
jurisdiction, authority
and control regarding the
development of oil or gas.
The Division regulates
oil and natural gas activity within the State 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.
Called a local bill of rights, despite
the preeminence of State oil and gas law,
Mora County passed its ordinance in
April of 2013.

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

Page Three

RONALD REAGAN, SAGEBRUSH REBEL - HIS UNTOLD HISTORY

Sagebrush 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 Ambrose
Scripps 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 Hannaford
Reagan associate and biographer

NOW AN AUDIOBOOK!

Sagebrush Rebel becomes even
more relevant with each passing day
and 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 $50
contribution to MSLF.

Reagan believed uniquely in Americas

future and its young people; his policies on
energy and the environment ensured prosperity for decades.

Warriors for the West

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, III
Reagans 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. Hayward
Reagan 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. Levin
Radio talk show host and author,
The Liberty Amendments

If you liked Reagan, you will love

Sagebrush Rebel. It is the perfect
gift! Contact MSLF for pricing of
copies bought in large quantity.

Prominently displayed at the Ronald

Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library

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 civilization 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

KEEP READING!

The Litigator, MSLFs quarterly
newsletter, is the indispensable tool for
staying informed regarding the latest in
MSLFs precedent-setting, nationallysignificant, 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.

Sagebrush Rebel is FREE with a $50.00 contribution to MSLF; see the

COUPON on page 5. Autographed copies are also available for $60.
Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

Page Four

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

Mountain States Legal

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

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.

Therefore, Your Generous

Contributions 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-reaching 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 Vital

If there is one lesson MSLF has learned
over the past 38 years, it is that, regardless 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 thousands of Americans committed to freedom could not be more important. Your
support will ensure that MSLF remains
IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

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 counsel 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 ones

hard-earned income.
Solution u Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.
u Although many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have been elimiReason
nated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by charitable giving remain!

The
Means u 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.

Problem

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.

u Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLFs brokerage

Stock
account DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528,
Transfer
Information 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
priornotification. Thank you!
GIFT: $______________ o$1000 o$500 o$250 o$100 o$50 o$25
o Check Payable to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF)
o Credit Card ___MC ___Visa ___Discover ___AmEx

Credit Card #__________________________________________________________________

Signature______________________________________________________________________

CVV# (3 digit code on back of card)____________________ Exp. Date________________

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 $50, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel, the audiobook.

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

Page Five

MSLF CHALLENGES EPAS WAR ON COAL MSLF FAULTS REGS

The attempt by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to do what Congress refused to do, that is, kill coal-fired
power plants across America, drew a reprimand from MSLF
and a demand that the
agency withdraw its
proposal. In official
comments filed with
the EPA, MSLF argues
that the agency lacks
the authority under
the Clean Air Act
(CAA) to regulate carbon dioxide emitted
by existing stationary sources, that the
cost of its new regulations is exorbitant
and unreasonable, and that the regulations flout the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
MSLF asserts, in response to the EPAs
June 18, 2014, proposed rule, that the
livelihoods of many of its members depend on the development of coal, oil and
gas, and other minerals, which provide
the energy used by existing stationary

sources, and that its members depend on

the electricity generated by these sources
in timber, livestock, agricultural products, and commercial and residential real
estate businesses.
Congress enacted
the CAA to ensure
cleaner, safer air for
our nation and to help
protect the publics
health and welfare by
regulating the emission of air pollutants
from new and existing stationary sources,
including power plants. Thus, Congress
directed the EPA to issue rules regarding
stationary sources.
On June 25, 2013, President Obama directed the EPA to issue a rule for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new
stationary sources and existing power
plants. In response, the EPA published
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines
for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Generating Units.

FEDERAL LAND LOCK-UP CASE APPEALED

A 121-year-old nonprofit, non-partisan
mining trade association with thousands
of members appealed three rulings by
an Arizona federal district court in the
groups attempt to
void a decision by
the Secretary of the
Interior closing a million acres of federal
land in northwestern
Arizona. The American Exploration and
Mining Association
(AEMA) (once Northwest Mining Association) of Spokane,
Washington, claimed
in its 2012 complaint and later briefings
and arguments that Interior Secretary
Salazars January 2012 order withdrawing land from entry under the General
Mineral Law to block access to millions
of pounds of the nations highest-grade
uranium ore violates federal laws. AEMA
had urged the district court to rule that the

Secretary violated the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act (FLPMA), the U.S.
Forest Service violated the National Forest
Management Act, and the Secretary violated the bar of the U.S.
Constitution against
the establishment
of religion. Instead,
the district court
deferred totally to the
Secretarys discretion.
The case concerns
the Arizona Strip
and Forest Service
and Bureau of Land
Management land
The Arizona Strip lies
north of the Colorado River in northwestern Arizona.
In June 2011, Secretary Salazar issued
an emergency withdrawal of the lands;
in October 2011, the BLM issued a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS);
and, in January 2012, Secretary Salazar
issued his order.

An outrageous land grab by the

Obama administration by increasing
significantly its authority over private
property by redefining the term waters
of the United States, as set forth in the
Clear Water Act (CWA), drew a stinging
reproof from MSLF. In official comments
filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, MSLF asserts that the rules
illegally: extend to all waters (not just
wetlands) and all waters adjacent to
non-navigable interstate waters; create
a new jurisdictional concept similarly
situated waters by misquoting the
Supreme Court; and ignore the Courts
demand that an agency establish nexus
on a case-by-case basis when it seeks to
regulate wetlands based on adjacency to
non-navigable tributaries. Contrary to
the Commerce Clause, the rules extend to
waters that are not channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or
that do not substantially affect interstate
commerce.
Over the years, landowners challenging federal wetland determinations
reached the Supreme Court of the United
States. In 1985, deciding at which point
water ends and land begins, the Court
upheld a definition that included wetlands that actually abut[] on traditional
navigable waters. In 2001, the Court held
that non-navigable, isolated, intrastate
waters, even those used by migratory
birds, were not within the CWA. In 2006,
ruling on whether the CWA included
intrastate wetlands adjacent to nonnavigable tributaries of navigable waters,
the Court vacated the Corps rules. On
behalf of a four judge plurality, Justice
Scalia required continuous surface
connection to bodies that are waters of
the United States in their own right,
but Justice Kennedy, while concurring
in striking down the rules, demanded
a significant nexus to waters that are
or were navigable in fact or that could
reasonably be so made.
In 2011, the EPA and the Corps
proposed new guidance that expanded
significantly the reach of the CWA. In response to 230,000 comments, the agencies
issued that proposal in April of 2014.

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

Page Six

LEGAL
ACTION
n In defense of a victory it won in 1981
following its 1979 lawsuit, MSLF
opposed efforts by various plaintiffs
to challenge a 2013 Wyoming federal
district court order mandating removal
of all wild horses from the checkerboard
lands in the Rock Springs area with one
narrow exception.
n MSLF urged the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit to uphold a ruling
by a Minnesota federal district court
that Minnesotas ban on carbon dioxide
emission generated outside the state
is a per se violation of the dormant
Commerce Clause.

NOTABLE
QUOTES
Thank you very much for your tireless
very effective advocacy.
James H. Porter
Castle Rock, CO
Keep up the good work.
Natha J. Durham
Evergreen, CO
You are a good show. Keep up the good
work.
M.S. Johnson
Denver, CO
Thanks for the work that you do.
James A. Huffman
Pagosa Springs, CO

n On behalf of an Ohio woman who seeks

to exercise her Second Amendment
rights when she travels to Illinois, MSLF
urged an Illinois federal district court to
strike down state law that restricts her
self-defense rights.
n Ignoring the property rights of MSLFs
clients70,000 New York landowners
Governor Cuomo allowed a member of
his cabinet to ban hydraulic fracturing
and hence natural gas development.
n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit declined to grant en banc review
of a ruling upholding the ability of the
University of Texas Austin to grant
admission on the basis of race.
n A Colorado taxpayer group urged a
Colorado state district court to strike
down new taxes imposed by the
Regional Transportation District (RTD)
in violation of the Taxpayers Bill of
Rights (TABOR).

n An Idaho federal district court refused

to dismiss a long-running lawsuit
challenging actions of the Bureau of Land
Management with regard to the sage
grouse despite revision of the agency
documents pursuant to a court order.
MSLF had urged dismissal.
n Two families sued by Montana Indian
Tribes in Montana federal district urged
the court to reject demands by federal
defendants in the lawsuit for an indefinite
stay; the families argue that the United
States will suffer no hardship and has not
justified its request.
n MSLF was vindicated when the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
upheld the ruling of an Arizona federal
district court that a Navajo District Court
has no jurisdiction over non-Indians in
a civil lawsuit filed for allegedly tortious
acts on an Arizona highway. In 2010, the
Navajo Supreme Court spurned MSLF.

As a former Reagan appointee for eight

years[,] I especially appreciate Sagebrush Rebel!
Donald Fife
Tustin, CA

Thank you so much for all you do to

protect our liberty in this perilous time for
our country.
Susan Kotta
Sea Cliff, NY

Thank you for being there [in the

Brandt case] and fighting for the rest of us.
Chard P. Smith
Highlands Ranch, CO
Keep it up.
Larry Brown
Logan, UT
Thank youfor your unwavering support of private property rights and against the
despicable and often illegal intrusion of the
federal government.
Wink Crigler
Springerville, AZ
Your Action Update made me so angry
I am compelled to send you [extra support to
fight the] EPA.
Alice J. Aguilar
Gilroy, CA

[Sagebrush Rebel] is a compelling read.

Keep fighting the good fight.
Bruce A. Webster
Sacramento, CA
[T]hank you for all the good work you do.
Jack Thompson
Fayetteville, AR
I appreciate your continued commitment to help those being harassed by our
government.
John R. Lemmons
Kelso, WA
It is sad that the only way to preserve
our [western agriculture] way of life is
through litigation, but that is the reality.
Leslie Hendry
Lysite, WY

Keep up your good work!

Rosemarie H. Tipps
Casper, WY

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

Page Seven

MOUNTAIN
STATES
LEGAL
FOUNDATION
2596 South Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80227

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage
PAID
Denver, CO
Permit No. 847

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

William Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER

Steven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENTADMINISTRATION

Janice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John J. Blomstrom, WY; Chairman

Don Sparks, TX; Vice Chairman
Frank S. Priestly, ID; Secretary
Roy G. Cohee, WY; Treasurer
Ernest Angelo, TX
Stephen M. Brophy, AZ
Roger Cymbaluk, ND
John R. Gibson, NV
Thomas C. Jepperson, UT
L. Jerald Sheffels, WA

MSLF BATTLES OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AT APPEALS COURT

Tab Bonidy, who is licensed to carry a handgun and reguA Colorado man and a national gun rights group were
represented before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
larly carries a handgun for self-defense, must drive to Avon to
Circuit in their cross-appeal of the ruling of a Colorado federal
collect his mail, but he is barred by federal regulation from cardistrict court on U.S. Postal Service regulations. In mid-2013,
rying a firearm, or parking his vehicle if it contains his firearm
the district court struck down a rule
in the lot. In mid-2010, Mr. Bonidy
that bars firearms in Postal Service
asked that the regulation be withparking lots as unconstitutional.
drawn; but the agency refused. Mr.
The court held, openly carryBonidy and the National Association
ing a firearm outside the home is
for Gun Rights filed their lawsuit
a liberty protected by the Second
in October 2010. Stephen J. Lechner, Esq., MSLF Vice President and
Amendment [and the] parking lot
Chief Legal Officer argued before
adjacent to [a local Post Office] is
the panel. Unfortunately, during
not a sensitive place [such that] an
argument, the Postal Service refused
absolute ban on firearms is substantially related to [Defendants]
to recognize that a constitutional
important public safety objective.
right is involved, that it has a heavy
Avon, Colorado Post Office
The district court ruled that the
burden to justify any regulation, and
Postal Service regulation was adopted prior to the landmark
that post offices across the country differ.
rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in District
In 2007, the Postal Service renewed its total ban on fireof Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago and thus
arms on Postal Service property, first promulgated in 1972.
failed to recognize citizens Second Amendment rights. The
The Postal Services total ban on firearms possession impairs
district court also criticized the Postal Service for its one-sizethe right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second
fits-all approach, [T]heres a difference between all of this
Amendment even when individuals are traveling to, from, or
broad, general restriction and an individual situation. [T]his
through Postal property because the Postal Service does not
is more of what we are seeing[;] regulatory authority prevails,
allow people to store a firearm safely in their vehicles. The ban
period. Both the Postal Service and MSLF appealed.
also greatly impairs the right to travel.

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