## Facts

- Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to address environmental and economic harms from surface coal mining through minimum federal standards and a cooperative federal–state permitting system.
- The Act allowed states to implement federally approved regulatory programs; if a state did not, the federal government would administer a program in that state.
- Coal producers, landowners, and state and local governmental entities filed a pre-enforcement facial challenge seeking to block SMCRA before it was applied to specific mining operations or parcels.
- The district court upheld SMCRA against Commerce Clause, Equal Protection, and substantive due process challenges but ruled that SMCRA violated the Tenth Amendment, effected uncompensated takings under the Fifth Amendment, and contained unconstitutional enforcement procedures; it enjoined enforcement of several provisions.
- The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power by regulating surface coal mining on private land through SMCRA.
2. Whether SMCRA violates the Tenth Amendment by intruding on state sovereignty.
3. Whether SMCRA is facially invalid under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as an uncompensated regulatory taking.
4. Whether SMCRA’s enforcement provisions, including immediate cessation orders and civil penalties, violate procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment invalidating SMCRA in this facial, pre-enforcement posture.
- The Court held SMCRA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power because Congress had a rational basis to find surface coal mining substantially affects interstate commerce and the regulatory scheme is reasonably related to national objectives.
- The Court held SMCRA does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it regulates private actors, not states as sovereigns, and it permissibly preempts state regulation of private activity affecting interstate commerce.
- The Court held the asserted takings challenges to key provisions were not ripe and, on the face of the statute, appellees had not shown that the Act would be invalid in all applications.
- The Court upheld immediate cessation orders as consistent with procedural due process under an emergency exception permitting prompt action against imminent threats, coupled with post-deprivation process.
- The Court dismissed the facial challenge to civil penalty provisions as unripe absent a concrete enforcement injury.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause when it has a rational basis to conclude the activity substantially affects interstate commerce and the regulatory means are reasonably related to legitimate federal objectives.
- The Tenth Amendment is not violated where federal law regulates private persons and businesses and preempts conflicting state regulation of private conduct within Congress’s commerce power; offering states the option to administer a conforming program does not, by itself, regulate states as states.
- A facial takings claim generally fails unless the challenger shows there are no circumstances in which the statute could be valid as applied; takings claims commonly require a developed factual record and application to specific property interests to be ripe.
- Procedural due process permits immediate administrative action without a pre-deprivation hearing in emergency circumstances involving imminent danger to public health or significant imminent environmental harm, so long as prompt post-deprivation review is available.
- Pre-enforcement challenges to penalty schemes are not ripe without concrete application or actual injury.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld SMCRA against broad facial constitutional attacks, confirming Congress’s authority to impose nationwide minimum standards on surface coal mining under the Commerce Clause, rejecting a Tenth Amendment bar where the statute regulates private actors, and requiring as-applied factual development for most takings and certain enforcement-related challenges while sustaining emergency cessation orders under procedural due process.


Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981)