## Facts

- Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to regulate surface coal mining and require reclamation to prevent undue harm to land and water resources.
- SMCRA imposed special reclamation and permit requirements for surface mining on “prime farmland,” including proof of capacity to restore productivity and bond-release conditions tied to restoration.
- SMCRA also required restoration to “approximate original contour,” topsoil segregation and preservation, detailed reclamation plans as part of permitting, procedures for designating lands “unsuitable” for mining, and buffer-zone restrictions near specified structures and places.
- SMCRA authorized civil penalties and required payment of a contested penalty into escrow pending review.
- Indiana, state officials, coal industry associations, and mine operators brought pre-enforcement facial challenges to multiple SMCRA provisions.
- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held the challenged provisions unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, the Fifth Amendment (due process, equal protection, and takings), and the Tenth Amendment, and permanently enjoined enforcement.
- Federal officials appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether SMCRA’s prime farmland and related reclamation provisions exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether SMCRA violated the Tenth Amendment by impermissibly regulating or coercing states in land-use regulation.
3. Whether SMCRA’s classifications and regulatory burdens violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process or equal protection components.
4. Whether SMCRA effected a taking without just compensation merely by its enactment (facial regulatory takings claim).
5. Whether a facial due process challenge to SMCRA’s civil penalty escrow requirement was ripe absent an assessed penalty and escrow payment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and upheld the challenged SMCRA provisions against the facial constitutional attacks.
- The Court held Congress could rationally find that surface coal mining and its environmental and land-use effects substantially affect interstate commerce, including effects on agricultural products from prime farmland.
- The Court held SMCRA did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it primarily regulates private mining activity and uses a permissible state-option structure (state program submission or federal administration).
- Applying rational basis review, the Court held the prime farmland and “approximate original contour” requirements were rationally related to legitimate objectives in protecting farmland and restoring land productivity and environmental quality.
- The Court rejected the facial takings claim because the provisions regulate conditions for mining rather than mandate physical occupation or, on their face, deny all economically viable use; takings analysis generally depends on concrete, property-specific facts.
- The Court dismissed the challenge to the civil penalty escrow provisions as premature because the plaintiffs did not show an assessed penalty or required escrow payment.

## Legal Principles

- Commerce Clause review is deferential where Congress could reasonably conclude that regulated activity, including environmentally harmful activity, substantially affects interstate commerce.
- A federal statute does not violate the Tenth Amendment when it directly regulates private parties and allows states the choice to administer a compliant program or have the federal government administer it.
- Economic and social regulation challenged under the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection components is generally reviewed under rational basis and upheld if any reasonably conceivable facts support it.
- Facial regulatory takings claims are disfavored where the asserted taking depends on application to particular properties; regulation of activity conditions is not, by itself, a taking absent a showing of severe property-specific deprivation.
- Pre-enforcement challenges require a concrete injury for justiciability; claims attacking penalty-payment mechanisms may be unripe without an actual assessment and payment obligation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that SMCRA’s prime farmland, reclamation, and related restrictions were not unconstitutional on their face under the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, and it found the due process challenge to the civil penalty escrow requirement unripe on the record presented.


Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314 (1981)