Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States Department of the Interior et al, No. 4:2010cv00004 - Document 36 (D. Idaho 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 21 Motion to Intervene; denying 27 Motion to Intervene; The Union and SEIMDF shall be permitted to file amicus briefs limited to the land exchange provisions of FLPMA and further limited to 10 pages apiece. They shall adhere to the briefing deadlines set for the BLM and Simplot. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATION Case No. CV 10-04-E-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; and UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendants. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it motions to intervene filed by the Southeast Idaho Mule Deer Foundation (SEIMDF) and the United Steelworker Local 632 (Union). For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the motions to intervene, but will allow both entities to file amicus briefs, limited to certain issues regarding the claim under FLPMA, as discussed more fully below. ANALYSIS In this action, the Tribes claim that the BLM s decision approving a land exchange between Simplot and the BLM violated (1) NEPA, (2) FLPMA, and (3) Memorandum Decision & Order - 1 the Government s trust obligations to the Tribes. The Tribes sued the BLM, but when Simplot moved to intervene, the Tribes did not object, and the Court granted them permissive intervention. The Tribes do object to the intervention motions of the Union and SEIMDF, arguing that they should at most be allowed to file amicus briefs. The Court agrees. Private parties are not entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) in a NEPA action. See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that private parties do not have a significant protectable interest in NEPA compliance actions ). With regard to the FLPMA and tribal trust issues, the Union and SEIMDF must show that their interests are not adequately protected by existing parties in order to be entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a). They cannot make that showing. The Union and SEIMDF have nothing to argue about the trust issues, and are not parties to the land exchange. The actual parties the BLM and Simplot have every incentive to raise all arguments in favor of the land exchange. This also weighs against allowing permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). See Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that court may consider in its discretion whether the intervenors interests are adequately represented by other parties in determining whether to allow permissive intervention under Rule Memorandum Decision & Order - 2 24(b)). It is true that the Union and SEIMDF have unique insight into the land exchange provisions of FLPMA, specifically its direction that the Secretary take into account the local economy and wildlife. But these insights can be communicated to the Court through narrowly focused amicus briefs. While intervention may lead to redundant arguments and a piling on effect, the filing of amicus briefs limited in size and scope will ensure that the interests of the Union and SEIMDF are heard without causing unfair prejudice to the Tribes. The Case Management Order set forth briefing deadlines for dispositive motions. Currently, the deadline for briefs filed by the BLM and Simplot is September 24, 2010. The Court will hold the Union and SEIMDF to that deadline, and the corresponding deadline for reply briefs of November 12, 2010. The briefs of the Union and SEIMDF shall discuss only the issues regarding the land exchange provisions of FLPMA, and shall be limited to 10 pages apiece. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motions to intervene filed by the Union and SEIMDF (Dkts. 21 & 27) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Union and SEIMDF shall be Memorandum Decision & Order - 3 permitted to file amicus briefs limited to the land exchange provisions of FLPMA and further limited to 10 pages apiece. They shall adhere to the briefing deadlines set for the BLM and Simplot. DATED: August 10, 2010 Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge Memorandum Decision & Order - 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
