close X
05/16/2017

What is the Antiquities Act? Short Answer: Depends Who You Ask (Part 2)

We recently began our series of blog posts examining the history, purpose, and limitations of the Antiquities Act of 1906, 54 U.S.C. §§ 320301 – 320303 (“Antiquities Act” or the “Act”). Today we continue discussing how the Act fits within the variety of other frameworks for protecting and using public lands. So what is the Antiquities Act?

In contrast to the Act’s ambiguous status, as discussed yesterday, the land management plans that arise from statutory schemes, and which are managed by the administrative agencies, are both comprehensive and detailed. The United States federal government owns approximately 640 million acres of land.[1] Of that, just over 610 million acres, or 95% of federally owned lands, are under the control of one of the four main federal land management agencies: The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, or, the Forest Service. The first three of these agencies are part of the Department of Interior (“DOI”), while the last is part of the Department of Agriculture. Federal public lands are administered subject to “a myriad of individual agency mandates to manage particular lands and particular resources” overlapped by “general environmental statutes.”[2] In addition, these agencies hold full or co-management responsibilities for all the national monuments.

The map below shows the extent of federally held lands in the United States:

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Established in 1905, the Forest Service is the oldest of the four major federal land management agencies, and the only one to officially predate the passage of the Antiquities Act. Its mission is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” The National Park Service followed over a decade later in 1916 and has a dual mission to preserve natural and cultural resources and provide such for the enjoyment of the public. The BLM, founded in 1946, is charged with the “stewardship of our public lands” and its management of such lands is “based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our Nation’s resources within the framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology.” In 1966, Fish & Wildlife was the last of these agencies to be established and was tasked with “working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

Read together, the missions of these federal public lands management agencies are to work collaboratively with numerous stakeholders to conserve and protect the nation’s natural and cultural resources with an eye towards multiple use and sustainable processes, as well as public access. The Antiquities Act is at odds with these major public lands management agencies to the extent that designations are made at the sole discretion of the President without consideration of existing land management, historic preservation, and/or environmental protection plans, and without any need for public input.

In addition to the laws providing for historic preservation, there are no less than twenty federal laws providing for the designation, protection, and management of environmentally sensitive areas located on public lands.[3] Many of those laws, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), require both public input and environmental assessments as part of their planning processes, which the Antiquities Act does not.

Although NEPA and FLPMA may be included in the final management plans for individual monuments, there is no affirmative requirement under the Antiquities Act to provide for environmental protections on the declared parcels. Curiously, some proponents of using the Antiquities Act have supported this aspect of the law because, in their view, bypassing congressional consensus or environmental review is a quicker and easier way to gain land protections. This perceived expediency and ease of using the Antiquities Act is no replacement for open and transparent discourse, particularly considering existing comprehensive historic preservation, land management, and environmental statutory and regulatory schemes that have established mechanisms for public and congressional oversight and input.

Given the hybrid nature the Antiquities Act and the sometimes arbitrary nature of its use, any reforms, if made, should consider existing statutory and regulatory frameworks for historic preservation, public lands management, and environmental protection, as well as methods for strengthening transparency and government accountability in decision-making.

Our series will continue next week with an overview of the environmental and fishery management laws that relate to marine or other water-based federal territories.

Any questions, commentary, or criticisms? Please e-mail us at kara.mckenna@causeofaction.org and/or cynthia.crawford@causeofaction.org

Cynthia F. Crawford is a Senior Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.
Kara E. McKenna is a Counsel at Cause of Action Institute. You can follow her on Twitter @Kara_McK

 

a[1] Cong. Research Serv., Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (Mar. 3, 2017).

[2] Marla Mansfield, A Primer of Public Land Law, 68 Wash. L. Rev. 801, 802 (1993).

[3] See e.g., Organic Act of 1897; Transfer Act of 1905; National Park Service Organic Act; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; Archaeological Recovery Act of 1960; Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; Wilderness Act of 1964; National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966; The National Historic Preservation Act; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; National Trails System Act of 1968; Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970; Endangered Species Act of 1973; The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971; National Forest Management Act of 1977; Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980; Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988; National Landscape Conservation System.

Media, Blog Learn More
05/15/2017

What is the Antiquities Act? Short Answer: Depends Who You Ask (Part 1)

We recently began our series of blog posts examining the history, purpose, and limitations of the Antiquities Act of 1906, 54 U.S.C. §§ 320301 – 320303 (“Antiquities Act” or the “Act”). This week we discuss how the Act fits within the variety of other frameworks for protecting and using public lands. So what is the Antiquities Act?

As discussed in our previous posts (here and here), the Antiquities Act permits a President to proclaim “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” as national monuments. To protect these objects, the President is also permitted to “reserve parcels of land as part of the national monument” subject to the limitation that “the parcels are confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.[1]

These two limitations on designating monuments are designed to reinforce each other. First, the land parcels must encompass “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.” This limitation makes sense considering the impetus for the law—the desire to protect Native American artifacts from being pillaged from federal lands and a method for quickly withdrawing such “land[s] from the public domain to preserve archaeological sites.”[2] Second, the parcel must be confined to the smallest area compatible with this purpose—a limitation that only makes sense relative to objects that require “proper care and management . . . to be protected.”

By recent standards, the first national monuments declared under the Antiquities Act were small. Thirty-seven of the first forty declared national monuments measured less than 100,000 acres in total; each monument averaged just 5,350 acres. And the other three? Two of those national monuments were incorporated into Grand Canyon National Park and the third, Mount Olympus, is now part of Olympic National Park.

Despite the modest size of the early national monuments, it only took a little over a decade before the first million-acre-plus monument was declared, Katmai National Monument, which was proclaimed to “preserve an area that is of significant importance in the study of volcanism.”[3]  Like the Grand Canyon and Mount Olympus designations before it, the Katmai declaration offers a small but helpful case study of large-scale monument declarations.

In 1912, Mount Novarupta in Alaska erupted, causing the most powerful volcanic eruption of the 20th century (nearly thirty times more powerful than Mount St. Helens) and devastating the surrounding landscape. In the following years, explorers from the National Geographic Society conducted several expeditions into the remote region. As described by one of the explorers, Robert Griggs, “[t]he whole valley as far as the eye could reach was full of hundreds, no thousands— literally, tens of thousands— of smokes curling up from its fissured floor.” After his exploration of the region, Griggs, along with the National Geographic Society, lead the campaign to get the Katmai region made into a national park.[4]

National Park Service officials, however, worried that the creation of a new national park in Alaska would burn what limited good will the agency had with Congress.[5] Park Service officials informed the Society that the only possible protection for Katmai would be through the Antiquities Act.[6] At the time, the National Geographic Society proponents were worried about whether an Antiquities Act declaration could cover such a large area but were convinced by Park Service officials that it was the preferred method.[7] The declared monument “embraced little more than the area of active volcanic peaks surrounding Mount Katmai, along with the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes and most of Iliuk Arm,”—all identifiable features of established scientific value.[8] Nearly sixty years after its declaration, this large monument was established as a National Park and Preserve by Congress.

The growth in the size and scale of national monuments, and the routine re-designation of large-scale monuments as National Parks, highlight a key issue in the discussion regarding recent use, and possible reform, of the Antiquities Act—namely what type of law is it? Is it an historic preservation law? A public lands management law? An environmental law? Or a little of each? The answer depends on whom you ask. Each alternative has merits and flaws; and therein, we believe, lies the wellspring of debate over the proper purpose of the Antiquities Act.

For example, there is some basis for categorizing the Antiquities Act as an historic preservation program—or at least for arguing that Congress views it as such. In December 2014, Congress passed Pub. L. 113-287 enacting title 54, United States Code, “National Park Service and Related Programs”, as positive law. Although nothing in Pub. L. 113-287 “created new law or changed the meaning or effect of existing law,” it did recodify the Antiquities Act into “National Preservation Programs” alongside historic preservation laws. This arguably leads to a presumption that the Antiquities Act is an historic preservation law.

However, many groups argue that the Antiquities Act is an environmental law, particularly because of its recent stated use as a tool to curb climate change through prohibitions in proclamations barring new oil and gas leasing, and/or mining on monument lands.

In application, the Antiquities Act is also a public lands management law, as declarations of new national monuments have significant impacts on existing public lands management plans.[9]

We will continue discussing how the Act fits within the variety of other frameworks for protecting and using public lands tomorrow.

Any questions, commentary, or criticisms? Please e-mail us at kara.mckenna@causeofaction.org and/or cynthia.crawford@causeofaction.org

Cynthia F. Crawford is a Senior Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.
Kara E. McKenna is a Counsel at Cause of Action Institute. You can follow her on Twitter @Kara_McK

 

[1] 54 U.S.C. § 320301 (2014).

[2] See Eric C. Rusnack, The Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back, 64 Ohio State Law Journal 669, 674 n.23 (2003).

[3] Nat’l Park Serv.,U.S. Presidents and Katmai, https://www.nps.gov/katm/blogs/u-s-presidents-and-katmai.htm (Feb. 14, 2016); Proclamation No. 1487, 83 Stat. 926 (Jan. 20, 1969).

[4] Frank B. Norris, Isolated Paradise: An Administrative History of the Katmai and Aniakchak National Park Units ch. 2 (1996).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See generally U.S. Dep’t of Ag., San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan DRAFT Environmental Assessment (Aug. 2016).

Media, Blog Learn More
05/15/2017

CoA Institute Demands Secretary of State Recover All of Sec. Clinton’s Unlawfully Removed Email Records

Revelation of FBI grand jury subpoenas raises more questions than it answers

Washington D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) filed its opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss a case brought against the Secretary of State and the U.S. Archivist. The lawsuit seeks to compel the defendants to fulfill their legal obligations under the Federal Records Act to initiate action through the Attorney General to recover all of Hillary Clinton’s email records that were unlawfully removed from the State Department.

In December, 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, overturning an earlier opinion by the District Court that dismissed the case as “moot.” Despite the court’s rebuke, the Secretary of State and U.S. Archivist continue to refuse to perform their statutory obligations to recover Secretary Clinton’s email records by initiating action through the Attorney General.

One new piece of information publicly revealed for the first time in the government’s motion to dismiss was that during its investigation, the FBI issued grand jury subpoenas related to Secretary Clinton’s BlackBerry email accounts. The subpoenas confirm that the FBI investigation of Secretary Clinton was criminal in nature, but details about the scope of the subpoenas remains unknown.

CoA Institute President and CEO John Vecchione: “None of the information provided by the government establishes that the federal records at issue do not exist or cannot be recovered. The government presented fundamentally the same arguments the Court of Appeals already rejected last year. It is the agencies’ statutory duty to institute proceedings through the Attorney General to recover these records. Why the agencies are fighting so hard to avoid this obligation is unexplained.”

In its cross motion filed with its opposition, CoA Institute requests the Court to grant discovery for more information about the grand jury subpoenas that could be essential to the case. The government failed to introduce any evidence to show that the results of those subpoenas establish that Secretary. Clinton’s BlackBerry emails are not recoverable through forensic means.

Read the full pleading here

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
05/12/2017

Dear President Trump: It’s Time to Release the Watchdogs

You’re unlikely to hear much about it, but today marks an important yet troubling milestone. The Department of the Interior has gone 3,000 days—over eight years—without a permanent IG, or “Inspector General.”  And according to the Project on Government Oversight’s “Where Are All the Watchdogs?” tracker, there are eleven other IG vacancies, including empty spots at the Central Intelligence Agency (832 days), the Department of Defense (489 days), and the National Security Agency (346 days). It was inexcusable for President Obama to neglect to fill these vacancies with qualified candidates.  It is similarly irresponsible for President Trump to continue to ignore these vital appointments.

IGs serve as the internal watchdogs of the Executive Branch agencies. They are tasked with identifying and combatting waste, fraud, and abuse at their respective entities.  To accomplish this, they conduct important investigations, inspections, and audits.  They are intended to operate independently of agency leadership—a sort of internal check on the operation of the administrative state.

The absence of permanent IG appointees to these vital roles is concerning for numerous reasons. First, it reflects the Administration’s lack of commitment to transparency and accountability in government.  Moreover, acting IGs lack true independence.  As Senator Ron Johnson has commented, “[t]hey are not truly independent, as they can be removed by the agency at any time; they are only temporary and do not drive office policy; and they are at greater risk of compromising their work to appease the agency or the president.”

There has been a renewed push to highlight the crises in IG appointments in recent weeks. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for example, called on President Trump last month to fill the numerous vacancies, describing IGs as “essential to the functions of federal government.” A bi-partisan group of members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee did the same: “[T]he lack of a permanent IG can create the potential for conflicts of interest and diminish the essential independence of IGs.”

President Trump still has a long way to go in appointing qualified candidates to fill the Executive Branch, and it is admittedly early in his Administration. But selecting qualified, independent, and committed individuals for these vacant watchdog spots should be a top priority.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
05/11/2017

Court Orders Dismissal of D-Link Corp. from FTC Data Security Case

SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. District Judge James Donato has instructed the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to dismiss Taiwan-based D-Link Corporation (“D-Link Corp.”) from a case brought by the FTC in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California involving unfounded allegations as to security practices for routers and IP cameras. On April 3, 2017, D-Link Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the case because the Court lacked jurisdiction over the company. FTC’s dismissal of D-Link Corp. renders that motion moot. The case will now proceed with California-based D-Link Systems, Inc. as the sole Defendant.

Cause of Action Institute Assistant Vice President Patrick Massari: “The FTC sued a Taiwanese-based corporation without any factual predicate or consumer victims, real or imagined, exceeding the bounds of its regulatory authority. We are grateful for the Court’s directive and pleased with this resolution of issues raised by D-Link Corp.’s motion to dismiss.  We look forward to continuing to vigorously defend this case on behalf of D-Link Systems, Inc.”

Background:

In early January, the FTC filed a complaint against D-Link Systems Inc. and D-Link Corp. The complaint makes vague and unsubstantiated allegations, without asserting a single data breach of any product sold in the U.S. by either company. Instead, the FTC’s complaint relies on unspecified press reports and mere speculation that consumers were placed “at risk,” but fails to allege, as it must, that consumers suffered or are likely to suffer actual or substantial injury. D-Link Systems continues to stand behind its products and maintains a robust range of procedures to address potential security vulnerabilities.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
05/10/2017

Cause of Action Institute Signs Coalition Letter Opposing Congressional Interference with the FOIA

Cause of Action Institute signed a coalition letter yesterday that urged Jeb Hensarling, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to rescind his recent direction to the Department of Treasury and other agencies to treat all records exchanged with the committee as “congressional records” not subject to FOIA, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act.

As I outlined in a recent op-ed published in The Hill, the mere fact that an agency possesses a record that relates to Congress, was created by Congress, or was transmitted to Congress, does not, by itself, render it a “congressional record.”  The law instead requires that Congress manifest clear intent to maintain control over specific records to keep them out of reach of the FOIA.

Chairman Hensarling’s letter employs sweeping, generalized language in an ineffective yet blatant attempt to frustrate public access to records of Congress’s dealings with the Executive Branch.  As the coalition letter explains, such “assertions improperly restrict the ability of the public to use FOIA” and indicate a dangerous departure from a commitment to transparency and good government.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
05/9/2017

It’s Time to End the Federal Government’s Cash-for-Visas Program

The Washington Post rightly called on the Trump Administration yesterday to end the government’s controversial EB-5 visa regime and, in particular, its Regional Center Program, which was recently extended until the end of September 2017. In most cases, the “Immigrant Investor Program,” or Employment-Based Preference Five (“EB-5”) cash-for-visa program, permits foreign nationals to apply for a conditional visa by investing $500,000 in an area of “high unemployment.”  Once certain job creation requirements are satisfied, the visa holder can apply for a green card (i.e., for permanent residence).  Although advocates contend that EB-5 is good for the economy, the program has been beset with controversy.  Most recently, President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, came under scrutiny for his family’s efforts to “push” EB-5 visas to wealthy Chinese investors.

Cause of Action Institute’s (“CoA Institute”) investigation into various aspects of the EB-5 cash-for-visa program and the Regional Center Program have shown that these initiatives are continually abused for political or fraudulent purposes—a fact now acknowledged by the Government Accountability Office.

  • CoA Institute published a comprehensive report detailing how Virginia Governor Terry McAullife’s former company, GreenTech Automotive, used his political connections to garner millions of taxpayer dollars in loans and tax incentives. GreenTech remains embroiled in an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for its involvement with EB-5. The Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security reported that McAuliffe and friends—including Anthony Rodham, brother of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—benefited from political favoritism in the administration of the visa program.
  • CoA Institute’s report on Forest City Enterprises explained how corporate interests and state and local government worked together to take advantage of weak and ambiguous regulations governing EB-5—manipulating census data to create “targeted employment areas” and relying on questionable job prediction models to meet green card conditions. CoA Institute also discovered that Forest City contracted the same immigration lawyer and economist as GreenTech.
  • CoA Institute filed an ethics complaint against former Senator Harry Reid, who contacted officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in an attempt to influence the approval of EB-5 visa applications for a casino development project owned by Reid’s donors and represented by his son. The Senate Ethics Committee ignored the request, claiming that it never received a copy despite evidence to the contrary.
  • In the wake of the DHS Inspector General’s report, CoA Institute called on the Department of Justice to investigate a number of government officials for violation of federal laws.

Simply stated, the EB-5 Program operates as a cash-for-visa scheme. Whatever economic advantage it might offer is outweighed by the corruption it engenders and negative influence it has on national security and good government.  Congress should end the program or work to reform its governing rules to prevent continued abuse by the political class.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Blog, Media Learn More