Court to Review Expired Law on Spotted Owl

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review the constitutionality of a 1989 law that authorized logging activity in 13 national forests that are home to the northern spotted owl, even though the statute expired nine months ago.

Although the high court review may open another chapter in the legal struggle between the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest and environmental champions of the endangered owl, it would take another act of Congress to revive the 1989 law.

In clearing the slate at the close of the 1990-91 court term, the justices agreed without comment to consider the legality of a temporary statute that was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The statute, which affected 13 forests in Oregon and Washington, was intended to ease court-ordered prohibitions on logging while the legal fight between the industry and environmental groups dragged on in the courts.

The law’s provisions were effective only during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 1990, and it was struck down less than two weeks before its scheduled expiration. So far, Congress has made no move to enact another statute to extend the authorization.

The San Francisco appeals court ruled that the statute’s prohibition on federal court action to block logging in the 13 forests violated the Constitution’s principle of separation of powers by directing the judicial branch to reach a specific result.

The appeals court based its decision on a post-Civil War Supreme Court ruling that overturned legislation in which Congress sought to block federal court restitution of property confiscated from a Southern landowner who later recanted his support of the Confederacy.

In urging the Supreme Court to step into the spotted owl controversy, U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr said the 9th Circuit “has undermined Congress’ interim solution for averting a devastating crisis to the timber industry and local economies of the Pacific Northwest.”

Justice Department lawyers, arguing on behalf of the U.S. Forestry Service and the Interior Department, said the appeals court decision may be inhibiting Congress from renewing the law and that a favorable Supreme Court ruling could be important to the logging industry.

Government lawyers argued also that the Reconstruction Era ruling has been variously interpreted by appeals courts over the years and noted that the Supreme Court itself had not considered the issue of congressional interference in judicial powers for more than a century.

Todd D. True of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, representing the Seattle Audubon Society and other environmental activist groups in the case, had argued that the Supreme Court should ignore the case because the statute expired last September.

The appeals court decision “addresses only a limited, expired and no longer relevant statutory provision,” True said in a court filing.

“There is no similar legislation coming along,” True said after the court decided to review the case. “The practical significance of the case is very limited.”