MURPHY COMPANY, ET AL V. JOSEPH BIDEN, ET AL, No. 19-35921 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
President Obama issued a Proclamation under the Antiquities Act expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (“Monument”) in southwestern Oregon. Proclamation 9564 (“Proclamation”). Murphy Timber Company and Murphy Timber Investments, LLC (collectively, “Murphy”) are Oregon timber businesses. Murphy owns woodlands and purchases timber harvested in western Oregon to supply its wood products manufacturing facilities. Concerned that the Proclamation imposed a new limitation on its timber supply and deleterious effects on its woodlands adjacent to the expanded Monument, Murphy sued the President, the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”), and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States and intervenor environmental organizations. First, the Court has recognized constitutional challenges to presidential acts as reviewable. Second, the Court has held that actions by subordinate Executive Branch officials that extend beyond delegated statutory authority— i.e., ultra vires actions—are reviewable. The panel concluded that Murphy’s particularized allegations that the O&C Act restricts the President’s designation powers under the Antiquities Act satisfied the applicable jurisdictional standard. The panel held that the Proclamation’s exercise of Antiquities Act power was consistent with the text, history, and purpose of the O&C Act. Third, the panel held that the dissent’s concerns that the Proclamation and the O&C Act are in conflict are unsubstantiated.
Court Description: Antiquities Act / Presidential Proclamation The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States and intervenor environmental organizations in an action brought by Murphy Timber Company challenging Presidential Proclamation 9564, which was issued under the Antiquities Act, and expanded the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in southwestern Oregon.
The Antiquities Act grants the President broad authority to create, by presidential proclamation, national monuments from federal lands to protect sites of historic and scientific * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. interest. The Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (“O&C Act”) addresses the use of timberlands in the southwest corner of Oregon.
Murphy, an Oregon timber business, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and claimed that the Proclamation was an invalid exercise of the Antiquities Act because it offended the O&C Act’s promise to reserve certain lands for timber production. A collection of environmental organizations intervened to defend the Proclamation.
The panel first considered whether Murphy’s claim of ultra vires and unconstitutional action with respect to the Proclamation was immune from judicial review. In the absence of a statutory waiver, the Supreme Court has permitted judicial review of presidential actions in two circumstances. First, the Court has recognized constitutional challenges to presidential acts as reviewable. Second, the Court has held that actions by subordinate Executive Branch officials that extend beyond delegated statutory authority— i.e., ultra vires actions—are reviewable. Whether characterized as ultra vires or constitutional, the panel held that Murphy’s claims against the President regarding Proclamation 9564 were justiciable. Here, the core of Murphy’s claim—that the President violated separation of powers by directing the Secretary of Interior to act in contravention of a duly enacted law—could be considered constitutional and therefore reviewable. The panel concluded that Murphy’s particularized allegations that the O&C Act restricts the President’s designation powers under the Antiquities Act satisfied the applicable jurisdictional standard.
Next, the panel evaluated whether the Proclamation’s restriction on logging was consistent with the O&C Act. Murphy alleged that the O&C Act’s directive of “permanent forest production” circumscribed the scope of presidential authority over these specific lands. First, the panel held that the O&C Act did not explicitly or impliedly repeal the Antiquities Act. Nothing supports a claim that the Antiquities Act proclamations are broadsides at land- management laws and cannot coexist with preexisting congressional mandates. The panel held that there was no basis to suggest that Congress intended the O&C Act to nullify the Antiquities Act—which was itself an act of Congress. Second, the panel held that the Proclamation’s exercise of Antiquities Act power was consistent with the text, history, and purpose of the O&C Act. Timber production was not the sole purpose that Congress envisioned for the more than two million acres of O&C lands. Congress delegated ample discretion to the Department of the Interior to manage the lands in a flexible manner. Third, the panel held that the dissent’s concerns that the Proclamation and the O&C Act are in conflict are unsubstantiated. The panel concluded that the Proclamation was a valid exercise of the President’s Antiquities Act authority, and the Proclamation was fully consistent with the O&C Act.
Judge Tallman concurred in part because he agreed that the court could review claims that the President’s execution of one statute obstructed the operation of another. However, he dissented from the majority’s conclusion that Proclamation 9564 did not conflict with the O&C Act. He wrote that the issue of whether the Antiquities Act and the O&C Act can coexist in the abstract is beside the point.
Rather, the court must decide whether Proclamation 9564— issued pursuant to the Antiquities Act—conflicts with the O&C Act. A review of the plain text of the Proclamation and the O&C Act reveals an obvious conflict. The O&C Act requires sustained yield calculation for all O&C timberlands. Proclamation 9564 removes O&C timberlands from the sustained yield calculation if they fall within the monument. By expressly singling out sustained yield calculation for prohibition, the President’s proclamation intentionally directs the Secretary to disregard her statutory duties under the O&C Act to make sure that timber is available for harvest to meet economic needs of timber- dependent communities. Judge Tallman wrote that he would give effect to the plain meaning of the O&C Act and declare the Proclamation void as to O&C timberland.
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.