452 U.S. 264, 310-312 (1981)
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 establishes a nationwide program to regulate surface coal mining operations.1 Title II creates the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement within the Department of the Interior.2 The Secretary of the Interior, acting through that office, bears primary responsibility for promulgating regulations and enforcing the Act's provisions.3
The Act implements a two-stage regulatory scheme consisting of an interim phase and a permanent phase.4 In the interim phase, which began after the Secretary published regulations on December 13, 1977, mine operators must comply with selected federal performance standards.5 These standards govern land restoration, topsoil segregation, hydrologic balance, and related matters.6 States may issue permits subject to those standards, but the federal government retains independent enforcement authority.7
On October 23, 1978, the Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, Inc., an association of coal producers operating in Virginia, together with 63 of its member companies and four individual landowners, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.8 The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the interim regulatory program's performance standards and enforcement provisions of the Act.9 The Commonwealth of Virginia and the town of Wise intervened as plaintiffs.10
The plaintiffs' challenge focused primarily on the interim regulatory program's performance standards.11 They alleged that those provisions violated the Commerce Clause, the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.12 The District Court conducted a thirteen-day trial on the request for a permanent injunction.13
In a 1980 opinion and order, the District Court rejected the plaintiffs' Commerce Clause, equal protection, and substantive due process challenges.14 It held that the steep-slope provisions of the Act violated the Tenth Amendment by displacing the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional functions.15 The court also ruled that various provisions effected an uncompensated taking of private property.16 It found due process violations in certain enforcement mechanisms and permanently enjoined the Secretary from enforcing the invalidated provisions.17
In No. 79-1538 the Secretary appealed the portions of the judgment declaring provisions unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement.18 In No. 79-1596 the plaintiffs cross-appealed the rejection of their Commerce Clause challenge.19 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals in 1980 and consolidated the cases.20
Whether the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause?21
Yes. The District Court properly deferred to Congress's express findings in the Act.25 Surface coal mining operations result in disturbances that burden and adversely affect commerce and the public welfare.26 The legislative record includes six years of hearings.27
Detailed committee reports document acid drainage ruining streams, loss of forests and wildlife habitat, and economic losses from mining-related pollution.28 These provide ample support for the findings.29 Appellees' argument that the Act regulates local land use not affecting interstate commerce is rejected because even intrastate activities may be regulated if they affect commerce when combined with similar conduct by others.30
Coal moves in interstate commerce.31 The prevention of destructive interstate competition among coal producers is a traditional role for congressional action under the Commerce Clause.32
The Act is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.33
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Rehnquist concurs in the judgment.34 He emphasizes that the commerce power requires a substantial effect on interstate commerce rather than a mere effect.35 The Court has sometimes misstated the test by requiring only an effect on commerce.36
Nevertheless, he agrees that Congress's detailed factual findings as to the effect of surface mining on interstate commerce are sufficient to justify the exercise of that power under prior precedents.37 He therefore concurs in the judgments of the Court.38
Whether the Act violates the Tenth Amendment by regulating the States as States in areas of traditional governmental functions?39
Under National League of Cities v. Usery, a Tenth Amendment claim requires showing that the statute regulates the States as States.40 It must address an attribute of state sovereignty.41 It must directly impair the States' ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.42
No. The steep-slope provisions of the Act govern only the activities of private coal mine operators, not the States as States.43 The States are not compelled to enforce those standards, to expend state funds, or to participate in the federal program.44 If a State declines to submit a compliant program, the federal government assumes the full regulatory burden.45 The Act thus creates a cooperative federalism scheme rather than commandeering state legislative processes.46
The Act does not violate the Tenth Amendment.47
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell concurs.48 He acknowledges that the Surface Mining Act mandates an extraordinarily intrusive program of federal regulation and control of land use and land reclamation.49 These are activities normally left to state and local governments.50
Nevertheless, the decisions of this Court over many years make clear that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to enact this legislation.51 The Act could affect seriously the owners and lessees of the land and coal in the seven westernmost counties of Virginia.52 Whether there has been a taking and the amount of just compensation are questions to be decided in specific cases.53
The Court's decision is confined to a holding that the Act in this respect is not facially unconstitutional.54
Whether provisions of the Act effect an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause?55
No. The Act does not, on its face, prevent beneficial use of coal-bearing lands.58 It merely regulates the conditions under which surface coal mining may be conducted.59 It does not categorically prohibit mining except in specified locations.60 Appellees identified no specific property interest that has been taken.61 The facial challenge presents no concrete controversy regarding application to particular operations.62 The potential for administrative variances and waivers further confirms the issue is not ripe.63
The Act does not effect a facial taking of private property.64
Whether the Act's enforcement provisions, including immediate cessation orders and civil penalty procedures, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?65
No. The immediate cessation order provisions respond to situations of imminent danger to health or safety or significant environmental harm.68 These are emergency situations justifying summary action.69 The criteria in the Act and regulations are specific enough to control governmental action.70 Mine operators receive prompt post-deprivation administrative hearings and judicial review.71 The 5-day response period for temporary relief is a statutory maximum and reasonable.72 The civil penalty challenge is premature because no penalties have been assessed against appellees.73
The Act's enforcement provisions do not violate due process.74