## Facts

- Kane County, Utah contains over 1.6 million acres of federally managed public land, including areas subject to federal restrictions on off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.
- The county asserted rights-of-way over many routes under Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477), a repealed federal right-of-way provision preserved only for “valid existing rights” perfected before repeal.
- Kane County admitted its R.S. 2477 claims to the routes at issue had not been adjudicated and were disputed by the United States.
- The county enacted an OHV ordinance purporting to open or regulate OHV use on routes across federal land based on its asserted R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
- The county removed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) route signs and replaced them with county signs, affecting route access and OHV use.
- Federal land-management plans and designations (including wilderness-related areas and a national monument) generally restricted OHV travel, particularly on routes not recognized as valid existing rights.
- Environmental organizations sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the county’s ordinance and signage conflicted with federal management and were preempted.
- The district court ruled for the plaintiffs and enjoined the county from enforcing similar measures or posting signs on claimed R.S. 2477 routes unless it first proved the rights in court.
- Kane County appealed, arguing lack of standing, mootness (based on rescission of the ordinance during litigation), and authority to act under R.S. 2477.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the county’s OHV ordinance and signage program.
2. Whether the dispute was moot after the county rescinded the challenged ordinance.
3. Whether a county may manage federal lands in a manner that conflicts with federal land-management decisions based on unadjudicated R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
4. Whether federal land-management plans and regulations preempted the county’s ordinance and signage actions.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs had Article III standing based on alleged harm to members’ recreational and aesthetic interests from increased OHV access and altered signage.
- The case was not moot because rescission did not eliminate the live controversy and the county retained the ability to resume similar conduct.
- The county could not exercise management authority over federal lands in conflict with federal management unless and until it proved valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in court.
- The county’s ordinance and signage program were preempted to the extent they conflicted with federal land-management plans and restrictions on OHV use.

## Legal Principles

- Federal land-management decisions control the use of federal public lands unless a contrary, legally valid right is established.
- A local government may not rely on unadjudicated R.S. 2477 assertions to open or manage routes on federal lands where doing so conflicts with federal land-use plans or regulations.
- Conflict preemption applies when a local ordinance or program authorizes conduct that federal law or federal land-management plans restrict or prohibit.
- Organizational standing may be established where members plausibly allege concrete recreational or aesthetic injuries traceable to the challenged local action and redressable by declaratory or injunctive relief.
- Voluntary cessation (such as rescinding an ordinance) does not moot a case where the defendant remains free to resume the challenged conduct and the dispute remains concrete.

## Conclusion

The court held that Kane County could not implement local route management measures on federal lands that conflicted with federal OHV restrictions based solely on unproven R.S. 2477 claims, and it affirmed injunctive and declaratory relief on federal preemption, rejecting standing and mootness defenses.


The Wilderness Soc’y v. Kane Cnty., 581 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2009)