## Facts

- Congress granted Colorado specific school-trust lands under the Colorado Enabling Act of 1875 “for the support of common schools,” requiring disposition “only at public sale” and creation of a permanent school fund whose interest supports schools.
- Colorado’s constitution implemented these federal conditions through a state trust administered by the State Board of Land Commissioners.
- In 1996, Colorado voters adopted Amendment 16, restructuring governance and management of the school-trust lands.
- Amendment 16 emphasized long-term stewardship and modernized management tools, rather than a single-minded focus on immediate revenue generation through land sales.
- Several school districts and students sued state officials, alleging Amendment 16 conflicted with the Enabling Act and was preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
- The federal district court dissolved an initial temporary restraining order, entered a limited preliminary injunction as to one subsection, and then granted summary judgment to the state officials on the merits.
- Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether Amendment 16 conflicts with the express conditions of the Colorado Enabling Act’s school-land trust and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
2. Whether the Enabling Act fixes (freezes) a specific historical management approach for school-trust lands, beyond its express restrictions on purpose, disposition, and creation of a permanent fund.
3. Whether Amendment 16 impermissibly diverts the trust’s benefits away from public schools by authorizing stewardship-oriented policies that plaintiffs claimed would reduce revenues.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the state officials.
- The court held Amendment 16 conforms to the Enabling Act’s trust restrictions and does not violate the Supremacy Clause.
- The court concluded Amendment 16 does not change the trust’s beneficiaries or purpose; the lands and proceeds remain dedicated to supporting common schools and the permanent school fund.
- The court rejected the argument that reduced or re-timed revenues, standing alone, establish a conflict with the Enabling Act.
- Certiorari was later denied.

## Legal Principles

- A federal enabling act granting school lands to a state creates binding trust conditions enforceable under the Supremacy Clause when state law conflicts with the act’s express terms.
- The state must comply with the enabling act’s core requirements, including dedication of the trust to support common schools and compliance with express restrictions on disposition and the permanent fund structure.
- Absent a contradiction of those express terms, the state retains substantial authority to revise governance structures and management policies for administering the trust.
- A change in management philosophy (including stewardship and long-term productivity considerations) is not preempted merely because it may affect revenue levels, so long as the trust purpose and federally imposed restrictions remain intact.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado’s Amendment 16 because it altered only the administration of the school-land trust, not the Enabling Act’s express conditions requiring that the trust remain devoted to supporting common schools through a permanent fund and compliant disposition rules; without an actual conflict, the Supremacy Clause did not invalidate the amendment.


Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1068 (1999)