Whether a state statute prohibiting any and all motorized mining in state-designated zones on federal land is categorically preempted under the Supremacy Clause

Questions Presented for Review In California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987), this Court considered the question whether states might assert permitting authority over the development of minerals on federal mining claims on federal land. Based upon California’s assurance that it did not seek to ban the mining, this Court held that “reasonable state environmental regulation” was not preempted, though state land use regulation would be. Jd. at 588-89. Multiple states now assert the right to ban mining as a use of specified federal lands categorically, rather than provide a permit-based process for imposing reasonable environmental standards on federal mining operations. The Ninth Circuit, in sharp conflict with Granite Rock and multiple federal circuit and state supreme courts, has upheld an Oregon statute prohibiting any and all motorized mining on federal land in areas Oregon deems better suited for use as fish habitat, effectively banning the development of minerals on such federal mining claims. This raises the questions: 1. Whether a state statute prohibiting any and all motorized mining in state-designated zones on federal land is categorically preempted under the Supremacy Clause because Congress has occupied the field of land use control on federal land through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 90 Stat. 2743 (1976), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 90 Stat. 2949 (1976), and related statutes. ii 2. Whether state statutes prohibiting any and all motorized mining on federal mining claims are preempted as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress set forth in multiple mining and land management statutes.