SCOTUS Has Ruled (Twice!) That Malheur Refuge Belongs To the Feds

ADDS DETAILS OF SOME VEHICLES SEEN AT THE ENTRANCE - An sign of the National Wildlife Refuge System is seen at an entry of the wildlife refuge, where some vehicles are seen used to block access to the inside of the r... ADDS DETAILS OF SOME VEHICLES SEEN AT THE ENTRANCE - An sign of the National Wildlife Refuge System is seen at an entry of the wildlife refuge, where some vehicles are seen used to block access to the inside of the refuge, about 30 miles southeast of Burns, Ore., Sunday, Jan. 3, 2016. Armed protesters are occupying a building at the national wildlife refuge and asking militia members around the country to join them. The protesters went to Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday following a peaceful rally in support of two Oregon ranchers facing additional prison time for arson. (Les Zaitz/The Oregonian via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Long before a group of armed militiamen stormed the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, the Supreme Court ruled –twice in fact– that the land on the preserve had always belonged to the federal government.

The armed group of squatters at the preserve today have claimed they are protesting the federal government’s acquisition of private land, but according to a report from the Oregonian, the preserve never fell out of the government’s control.

The Supreme Court ruled on the case both in 1902 and again in 1935, proof that locals have long challenged the federal government’s presumption of ownership. But in both cases, the federal government was found to be in possession of the land. The Hammond Family, who inspired the militia’s takeover of the reserve, had a long history of tension with the refuge. Dwight Hammond gave death threats on at least four occasions to refuge managers, and fights over water rights between the family and the refuge were common. Both Dwight and Steven Hammond are currently serving five-year-sentences for arson on federal lands.

But, the Oregonian has set the record straight that “before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away,” Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Someone tried to use Facts? Lol…

  2. Nonsense — Obama planted those stories about the Supreme Court decisions in the media. In reality the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 15-0 both times that the land had been viciously and cruelly expropriated from the rightful Mormon owners by jack-booted liberal Federal thugs at the direction of Eleanor Rooosevelt in 1949 as part of her drive to subjugate our country to the United Nations, but tyrant Obama has inserted propaganda to cover this information up.

  3. The Supreme Court ruled on the case both in 1902 and again in 1935, proof that locals have long challenged the federal government’s presumption of ownership. But in both cases, the federal government was found to be in possession of the land.

    Or as Ted Cruz calls them five unelected lawyers.

  4. There are certain members of our US society that strongly believe that they are entitled to what ever they want. Regardless of facts, laws and common sense.

  5. To clarify, the land has been held illegally by the federal government since they dishonored a treaty with the Paiute tribe that recognised it as theirs in the 19th century.

    The ranchers do not come close to having a claim on this land, and the federal government’s claim is also questionable.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

19 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for paulw Avatar for druid800 Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for flekk17 Avatar for lonewolf_93 Avatar for leftflank Avatar for bobatkinson Avatar for fargo116 Avatar for bluestatedon Avatar for chammy Avatar for mantan Avatar for callmeeric Avatar for calone1 Avatar for brendanm Avatar for hermankrieger Avatar for wagonmound

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: