## Facts

- Clifford and Bertha Gardner, Nevada ranchers, owned the Dawley Creek Ranch near the Humboldt National Forest, which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
- In 1988, the Forest Service issued the Gardners a ten-year grazing permit authorizing limited grazing on specified national forest allotments, subject to regulatory terms, including potential suspension or cancellation for noncompliance.
- Forest Service regulations provided that grazing livestock on national forest lands without authorization could result in assessment of an “unauthorized grazing use” fee.
- The Forest Service later determined the Gardners grazed cattle without authorization, assessed unauthorized-use fees, and the Gardners refused to pay.
- The Gardners asserted the United States lacked title to the relevant lands and therefore lacked authority to regulate grazing or charge fees.
- The United States sued in federal district court for injunctive relief and recovery of unauthorized grazing fees.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, enjoined unauthorized grazing, and ordered payment of the assessed fees.
- The Gardners appealed, challenging federal ownership and federal authority to manage and regulate the lands.

## Issues

1. Whether Nevada obtained title to unappropriated public lands within its borders upon statehood under the equal-footing doctrine or related statehood principles.
2. Whether Nevada’s Enabling Act and state constitutional provisions negate federal title or otherwise require transfer of federal lands to the state.
3. Whether continued federal ownership and regulation of large areas of land within Nevada violates the Tenth Amendment.
4. Whether, given federal title and authority, the United States may enjoin unauthorized grazing on national forest land and assess unauthorized grazing use fees.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held the United States validly retains title to the public lands at issue, including national forest lands in Nevada.
- The court rejected the Gardners’ equal-footing, enabling-act, and Tenth Amendment arguments.
- The court upheld the injunction prohibiting unauthorized grazing and the order requiring payment of unauthorized grazing use fees.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Property Clause, Congress has broad authority to retain, manage, and regulate federal lands within a state and is not required to dispose of them.
- The equal-footing doctrine secures states’ political equality and does not transfer title to federal public lands upon admission to the Union.
- Statehood enabling acts and state constitutional disclaimers of “right and title” to unappropriated public lands are evidence of recognized federal ownership.
- The Tenth Amendment does not limit federal action taken pursuant to an enumerated constitutional power, including the Property Clause.
- Where federal title and regulatory authority are established, courts may grant injunctive relief to prevent unauthorized use of federal lands and enforce authorized regulatory fees for unauthorized grazing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the United States retains title to Nevada public lands under the Property Clause, that neither equal-footing nor Nevada’s statehood instruments transfer title to the state, and that the Tenth Amendment does not bar federal land management; it therefore affirmed an injunction and fee award for unauthorized grazing on national forest land.


United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997)