## Facts

- Federal statutes authorized the United States to acquire land interests, including wetland conservation easements, to protect migratory bird habitat, funded largely by duck-stamp revenues.
- The Wetlands Loan Act of 1961 required that acquisitions using Loan Act funds be approved by the Governor or an appropriate state agency.
- From 1961 to 1977, successive North Dakota Governors approved a federal program to acquire wetland easements covering about 1.6 million acres; the United States acquired easements on roughly half that amount.
- In 1977, North Dakota enacted statutes that imposed new conditions on approval of federal easement acquisitions, capped easements at 99 years, and allowed landowners to drain “after-expanded” wetlands beyond the easement’s legal description.
- The United States filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the 1977 statutes could not be applied to defeat federal acquisition authority or invalidate federal easements.

## Issues

1. Whether the Wetlands Loan Act’s requirement that acquisitions “has been approved” by the Governor or state agency permits North Dakota to withdraw or condition previously given approval before individual easement acquisitions are completed.
2. Whether North Dakota’s 1977 statutes restricting federal wetland easements (including duration limits and authorization to drain after-expanded wetlands) may be applied against the United States or are inapplicable under federal law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the United States.
- The Court held that the Loan Act approval, once given, could not be revoked at the will of an incumbent Governor or through later state legislation.
- The Court held North Dakota could not use the 1977 statutes to revoke consent indirectly by conditioning approval on compliance with new state requirements.
- The Court held state provisions authorizing drainage contrary to federal easement terms were hostile to federal interests and could not be applied.

## Legal Principles

- Absent contrary federal legislation, the United States has power to acquire property for federal purposes, including by purchase or condemnation, without state consent.
- When Congress conditions certain federal acquisitions on state approval, the consent requirement is a federal statutory limitation; its scope is determined by federal law.
- Under the Wetlands Loan Act, the phrase “has been approved” refers to a completed act of approval for the acquisition program and does not include a statutory right of rescission.
- State laws are inapplicable to the extent they are hostile to federal interests, including where they authorize conduct that conflicts with federal easement terms or would defeat federally authorized conservation objectives.

## Conclusion

The Court held that North Dakota’s prior gubernatorial approval under the Wetlands Loan Act could not be withdrawn through later state action, and that state statutory restrictions conflicting with federal wetland easements—especially provisions allowing drainage contrary to easement terms—could not be enforced against the United States.


North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983)