The Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine and Federal Common Law: an Unconventional View
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hastings Environmental Law Journal Volume 16 Number 1 Winter 2010 Article 8 1-1-2010 The Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine and Federal Common Law: An Unconventional View Crystal S. Chase Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_environmental_law_journal Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Crystal S. Chase, The Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine and Federal Common Law: An Unconventional View, 16 Hastings West Northwest J. of Envtl. L. & Pol'y 113 (2010) Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol16/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine and Federal Common Law: An Unconventional View * Crystal S. Chase I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 114 II. BACKGROUND: NINETEENTH CENTURY JURISPRUDENTIAL UNDERPINNINGS OF ILLINOIS CENTRAL ........................................... 117 A. Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee: The Supreme Court Ratifies the Public Trust Doctrine..................................................... 118 B. Pollard v. Hagan: The Supreme Court Articulates the Equal Footing Doctrine ....................................................... 121 C. Weber v. Board of Harbor Commissioners: The Public Trust Limits the Right to Wharf Out ............................................. 123 D. McCready v. Virginia: The Public Trust As a Power to Regulate Common Property for the Public Good .............. 124 III. THE FACTS AND LAW OF ILLINOIS CENTRAL ..................................... 125 A. The Factual History Behind the Case: How Illinois Central Arrived Before the Supreme Court ......................... 126 B. B. Examining the Source: The Language and Rationale of Illinois Central ..................................................................... 129 IV. EXPLAINING THE ORIGINS OF THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RESTRAINT AGAINST ALIENATION ..................................................................... 133 A. Eliminating Unpersuasive Theories ................................... 133 B. Developing a Persuasive Explanation for the Source of the Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine .............................. 137 V. RECONCILING ILLINOIS CENTRAL AND SUBSEQUENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS .......................................................................... 143 A. Shively v. Bowlby: The Court Considers the Validity of Pre-Statehood Federal Grants of Submerged Lands ........ 143 B. Appleby v. City of New York: The Court Upholds a Conveyance of Submerged Lands that Does Not Substantially Impair the Public Trust ................................. 145 C. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi: The Court Officially Extends the Public Trust to Non-navigable Tidewaters ... 147 VI. ILLINOIS CENTRAL’S LEGACY ON STATE COURT JURISPRUDENCE ..... 150 * J.D., Lewis & Clark Law School 2009; B.S. Foreign Service 2006, Georgetown University. This Comment grew out of a seminar on the Public Trust Doctrine taught by Professor Michael Blumm in Fall 2008. The author would like to thank Professor Blumm for his encouragement and insightful critiques. 113 West Northwest, Vol. 16, No. 1, Winter 2010 A. Truly a “Lodestar”? General Trends in State Court Treatment of Illinois Central ................................................... 151 B. How States Have Put the Illinois Central Public Trust Doctrine To Work ................................................................. 156 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 162 I. Introduction In 1970, Joseph Sax sounded a call for reinvigorating the public trust doctrine as a means for developing comprehensive legal solutions to natural resource management challenges.1 Since then, states have applied the public trust doctrine in many forms, including as a rule of statutory interpretation, a potential background principle of state property law in cases alleging takings, and a procedural overlay for administrative decision- making processes.2 However, the heart of the public trust doctrine lies in its original formulation as a restraint on state alienation of public trust lands under navigable waters, as first articulated by Justice Stephen J. Field in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois.3 The Illinois Central opinion established the original public trust limitation on state power. A state may not abdicate control over public trust lands, subject to two narrow exceptions: for purposes promoting the trust, and conveyances which do not work a substantial impairment of the public interest.4 Although much has been written about Illinois Central,5 it remains 1. Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 MICH. L. REV. 471, 474 (1970). 2. See, e.g., Michael C. Blumm, Public Property and the Democratization of Western Water Law: A Modern View of the Public Trust Doctrine, 19 ENVTL. L. 573, 578 (1989) (arguing the public trust operates as a democratizing principle in at least four distinct ways: (1) as a public easement guaranteeing access, (2) as a restrictive servitude barring takings claims, (3) as a rule of statutory construction creating presumptions against trust termination, and (4) as a requirement of reasoned decision-making). 3. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Illinois (Illinois Central), 146 U.S. 387, 453–55 (1892). 4. Id. at 453. 5. A December 2, 2008 Westlaw search reveals the case has been cited in 551 law review articles. See, e.g., Joseph D. Kearney & Thomas W. Merrill, The Origins of the American Public Trust Doctrine: What Really Happened in Illinois Central, 71 U. CHI. L. REV. 799 (2004) (describing the factual history behind the case); Douglas L. Grant, Underpinnings of the Public Trust Doctrine: Lessons from Illinois Central Railroad, 33 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 849, 851 (2001) (arguing the “underpinnings” of the Illinois Central public trust doctrine are found in the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the reserved powers doctrine); Richard A. Epstein, The Public Trust Doctrine, 7 CATO J. 411, 422–28 (1987) (explaining that although the Constitutional basis for the Illinois Central public trust doctrine is not clearly evident from the opinion, the case is best explained by the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution because “[w]hen property is conveyed out of public trust for inadequate consideration, some 114 West Northwest, Vol. 16, No. 1, Winter 2010 unclear whether the origins of the opinion’s public trust doctrine lie in federal or state law. The answer to this question is essential because if the Illinois Central public trust doctrine arises from federal law, then the rule against alienation applies to all states, not just to Illinois.6 In his seminal article, Charles Wilkinson explored the origins, or the “headwaters” of the public trust.7 Tracing the history of the public trust doctrine back to Roman and English common law, Wilkinson observed how the real foundations for the trust lay in the “high public value in water” recognized by countless societies.8 He explained that the United States was no exception, as the nation’s rivers functioned as natural highways for transportation and commerce since the foundation of the republic.9 Wilkinson persuasively argued that the Supreme Court’s Illinois Central decision must “have been premised on federal law” because the most logical explanation is to view the trust as an implied condition of statehood designed to keep navigable watercourses free from obstructions to navigation.10 He concluded that the public trust doctrine operates as a creature of both federal and state law because it provides broad discretion to the states to control trust lands, while retaining a federally imposed limit on the ability of states to abdicate their responsibility as trustees.11 Wilkinson briefly discussed how many state courts have treated the underlying principles of Illinois Central as law of general applicability, rather than a creature of Illinois state law.12 Other commentators characterized the treatment of Illinois Central as highly persuasive, but stopped short of describing the states’ views of Illinois Central as mandatory or binding.13 Still citizens receive disproportionate benefits, while others receive disproportionate losses” in violation of equal protection); see also sources cited infra notes 8, 9, & 13. 6. Cf. Eric Pearson, Illinois Central and the Public Trust Doctrine in State Law, 15 VA. ENVTL. L.J. 713, 721 (1996) (“Resolving the status of Illinois Central proves significant because, if the case is understood to be only persuasive, rather than mandatory, states may contract, eliminate, or halt the expansion of the [public trust] doctrine.”). 7. Charles F. Wilkinson, The Headwaters of the Public Trust: Some Thoughts on the Source and Scope of the Traditional Doctrine, 19 ENVTL. L. 425 (1989). 8. Id. at 429-31, 431. 9. Id. at 431-38. 10. Id. at 453, 458. 11. Id. at 461-62. 12. See id. at 463 & n.163 (citing state cases). 13. HARRISON DUNNING, WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS, § 30.02(b)(1) & nn.140 & 154 (Robert E. Beck ed., 1991); see also Michael C. Blumm, Harrison C. Dunning,