Court Rules for Loggers in Spotted Owl Habitats

In a victory for the Northwest timber industry, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Congress can temporarily modify its environmental laws to permit the cutting of some old-growth forests that are home to the endangered spotted owl.

The ruling clears the way for the sale of timber in 16 areas designated by federal officials but it does not end the legal and political battle over the spotted owl.

A federal judge in Portland, Ore., last month blocked further logging in old-growth forests controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, and that order and other legal injunctions remain in effect. Meanwhile, Democrats on Capitol Hill and the Republican Administration continue to squabble over the issue.

Congressional Democrats have accused the Bush Administration of failing to enforce environmental laws, while the Administration has said that it wants to prevent loggers in Oregon and Washington from becoming an endangered species.

As a legal matter, Wednesday’s 9-0 court ruling stands as a rebuff to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco. Timber industry officials have criticized the appellate court for repeatedly siding with environmentalists and for blocking government plans to sell off timberlands.

In 1989, Congress sought a temporary compromise that would “balance the goals” of protecting the owl and preserving jobs in the timber industry. In a rider to a spending bill, Congress gave a go-ahead to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to allow timber harvesting in the 13 areas in Washington and Oregon. According to the rider, the forest management plans put forth by the BLM gave “adequate consideration” to protecting the owl under the Endangered Species Act.

This measure was designed to lift the pending court orders that blocked the timber sales.

But in response, the 9th Circuit declared the congressional action unconstitutional. Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Harry Pregerson called the action “an impermissible directive from Congress to the courts.” Under the “separation of powers” doctrine, Congress cannot tell the judges how to decide cases, he said.

In a brief opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court disagreed. The spending rider makes “a change in the law” and Congress is certainly empowered to amend its own laws, the justices said in the case (Robertson vs. Seattle Audubon Society, 90-1596).

Not surprisingly, the lawyers involved in the continuing battle over logging in the Northwest disagreed over the significance of Wednesday’s ruling.

“I think it is very significant. It will free up the 16 timber sales. And it strongly reaffirms the power of Congress to force a solution in the timber management problem,” said Portland attorney Mark C. Rutzick, who represents the Northwest Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group.

However, an attorney who represented the Seattle Audubon Society characterized the decision as a narrow one affecting a law that has already expired.

“This does not affect in any way the injunctions currently in place, and it should not overshadow the big picture of government intransigence,” said Seattle attorney Todd D. True.