Laserfiche WebLink
Accordingly, under the Tenth Circuit order, the Colorado Roadless Rule is in still in effect, but <br />there is no longer an exception for coal mining in the North Fork Exception area, and activity <br />premised on that unlawful exception may not occur. While the District Court has yet to enter the <br />formal vacatur order, this is a ministerial task that the District Court is required to take. See e.g., <br />Colo. Interstate Gas Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 962 F.2d 1528, 1534 (10th Cir. 1992) <br />(explaining that it is "well established that a district court must comply strictly with the mandate <br />rendered by the reviewing court."); Litchfield v. Dubuque & P.R. Co., 74 U.S. 270, 271 (1868) <br />("After the decision by this court, the court below had no power but to enter a judgment <br />according to the mandate, and to carry that judgment into execution. This was the end of the <br />case."). The Tenth Circuit order has immediate and retroactive effect. See United States v. Sec. <br />Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 79 (1982) (A "principle that statutes operate only prospectively, while <br />judicial decisions operate retrospectively, is familiar to every law student."). DRMS should not <br />stand idly by while Mountain Coal seeks to thwart the clear mandate from the Tenth Circuit by <br />taking advantage of court delays in implementing the vacatur order during a pandemic that has <br />resulted in significant court delays. <br />The vacatur of the North Fork Exception strips federal and state agencies of their <br />authority to allow Mountain Coal to conduct surface coal mining activities—activities such as <br />road -building and tree cutting are prohibited within the Sunset Roadless Area. See 36 C.F.R. § <br />294.43(a). Further, because the Tenth Circuit order has retroactive effect, Mountain Coal never <br />obtained a valid right to construct roads or other surface -disturbing activities through approval of <br />the lease modifications or mine plan approval. Nor does Mountain Coal have any pre-existing <br />lease, permit, or other rights to access the Sunset Roadless Area issued prior to the promulgation <br />of the Colorado Roadless Rule on July 3, 2012 3 The Rule's preamble makes it clear that while <br />"it does not affect the terms or validity of leases existing prior to the promulgation date of the <br />final rule," it was meant to limit surface -disturbing activities under any future leases.' Here, <br />Mountain Coal's access to the Sunset Roadless Area directly stems from the unlawfully adopted <br />North Fork Exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule, which the Tenth Circuit ordered to be <br />vacated. Accordingly, Mountain Coal lacks any legal right to build roads or cut trees within the <br />related litigation." Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir. 1982). Its purpose is "to protect <br />the integrity of the judicial process," New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001), and "may be <br />invoked to prevent a party from playing fast and loose with the courts," Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d <br />933, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In evaluating judicial estoppel, courts "inquire whether a party has succeeded <br />in persuading a court to accept the party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent <br />position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or second court was misled," <br />and "whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or <br />impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped." New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750. <br />3 36 C.F.R. § 294.48(a). <br />'77 Fed. Reg. 39576, 39579 (July 3, 2012). <br />s 36 C.F.R. § 294.48(a). <br />El <br />