Term: 2013
Docket: 12-1173
Brandt Trust v. United States
- Pro
12-1173 BRANDT REVOCABLE TRUST V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 496 Fed.Appx. 822 CERT. GRANTED 10/1/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case involves the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 ("1875 Act"), under which thousands of miles of rights-of-way exist across the United States. In Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262 (1942), this Court held that 1875 Act rights-of-way are easements and not limited fees with an implied reversionary interest. Based upon the 1875 Act and this Court's decisions, the Federal and Seventh Circuits have concluded that the United States did not retain an implied reversionary interest in 1875 Act rights-of-way after the underlying lands were patented into private ownership. In this case, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion and acknowledged that its decision would continue a circuit split. The question presented is: Did the United States retain an implied reversionary interest in 1875 Act rights-of way after the underlying lands were patented into private ownership? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-8047
The case of Brandt Trust v. United States (2013) revolved around the interpretation of the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and its impact on land ownership rights. The U.S government granted railroad companies right-of-way through public lands to encourage westward expansion, but this case questioned what happened when a railway abandoned that right-of-way. Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust owned land in Wyoming which was crossed by one such former railway line, now claimed by the U.S government for conversion into a public trail under the "rails-to-trails" program. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Brandt Trust, stating that once a railway company abandons these specific types of easements obtained via the 1875 Act, it extinguishes all rights to it and full property rights revert back to whoever owns them at that time - in this instance, Mr.Brandt's trust.
In the dissenting opinion for Brandt Trust v. United States, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision disregarded established legal precedent and ignored Congress' intent when it passed legislation regarding railroad rights-of-way. She contended that previous court decisions had consistently held that these rights-of-way were a form of limited fee with an implied reversionary interest to the government if they ceased being used as railroads. This interpretation was also reflected in federal statutes and regulations governing land grants to railroads. By ruling otherwise, she believed the Court not only upset settled expectations but also potentially opened up a floodgate of litigation over thousands of miles of former railroad corridors now converted into public trails or other uses under federal programs.
