2020-06-23_REVISION - C1980007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

terminate Mountain Coal's right to construct roads to access coal in the Lease Modifications Area, including the area covered by MR -446.2 On June 15, 2020, the Federal District Court entered an order formally vacating the North Fork Exception. Exhibit B. Accordingly, the Colorado Roadless Rule is in still in effect, but there is no longer an exception for coal mining in the North Fork Exception area, and activity premised on that unlawful exception may not occur. Both the Tenth Circuit and District Court orders have immediate and retroactive effect. See United States v. Sec. Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 79 (1982) (A "principle that statutes operate only prospectively, while judicial decisions operate retrospectively, is familiar to every law student."). The vacatur of the North Fork Exception strips federal and state agencies of their authority to allow Mountain Coal to conduct surface coal mining activities—activities such as road -building and tree cutting are prohibited within the Sunset Roadless Area. See 36 C.F.R. § 294.43(a). Further, because the Tenth Circuit and District Court vacatur orders have retroactive effect, Mountain Coal never obtained a valid right to construct roads or other surface -disturbing activities through approval of the lease modifications or mine plan approval. Nor does Mountain Coal have any pre-existing lease, permit, or other rights to access the Sunset Roadless Area issued prior to the promulgation of the Colorado Roadless Rule on July 3, 2012.3 The Rule's preamble makes it clear that while "it does not affect the terms or validity of leases existing prior to the promulgation date of the final rule," 4 it was meant to limit surface -disturbing activities under any future leases.' Here, Mountain Coal's access to the Sunset Roadless Area directly stems from the unlawfully adopted North Fork Exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule, which has been formally vacated. Accordingly, Mountain Coal lacks any legal right to build roads or cut trees within the Sunset Roadless Area, and DRMS lacked the authority to issue MR -446, which improperly purports to authorize Mountain Coal to continue its unlawful road -building activities. 2 Further, Mountain Coal, once it took this legal position, is judicially estopped from making contrary arguments concerning the impact of the Tenth Circuit's vacatur. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party "from adopting a legal position in conflict with one earlier taken in the same or related litigation." Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir. 1982). Its purpose is "to protect the integrity of the judicial process," New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001), and "may be invoked to prevent a party from playing fast and loose with the courts," Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In evaluating judicial estoppel, courts "inquire whether a party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept the party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or second court was misled," and "whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped." New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750. s 36 C.F.R. § 294.48(a). a 77 Fed. Reg. 39576, 39579 (July 3, 2012). s 36 C.F.R. § 294.48(a). n