United States Ninth Circuit

In a case challenging an agency's regulation of plaintiffs' use of a trail crossing federally protected land to access their property, denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissal of their case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' challenge to the incorporation of NEPA into Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act's (ANILCA) permitting process; and 2) conducting a NEPA analysis was consistent with the "adequate and feasible access" right of ANILCA.

Appellate Information

• Argued 07/12/2005
• Decided 02/05/2007
• Published 02/05/2007

Judges

• Before ALFRED T. GOODWIN, MELVIN BRUNETTI, and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Russell C. Brooks and James S. Burling, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Matthew J. Sanders, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellees., Robert W. Randall and Rebecca L. Bernard, Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, AK, for the defendants-intervenors-appellees.