REDDING, Calif. – In order to provide benefits to wildlife, open new recreational opportunities, and protect a historical area from potential development, the Bureau of Land Management has purchased approximately 3,200 total acres of new public land in areas from the Great Basin in northwest Nevada to the Pacific Coast in northern California.

“These successful land purchases underscore the BLM’s commitment to conserving vital habitats, enhancing recreational opportunities, and preserving the natural beauty of public landscapes for future generations, in alignment with the President’s America the Beautiful conservation initiative,” said Dereck Wilson, manager of the BLM Northern California District. “We extend our gratitude to the dedicated landowners and partners who made these achievements possible.”

The acquisitions include:

•    Greater Sage Grouse Habitat:  The BLM purchased eight parcels covering nearly 1,300 acres within areas designated as priority sage grouse habitat in Washoe County, Nevada. Containing springs, riparian areas, and meadows, these parcels provide ideal conditions for greater sage grouse, mule deer, and pronghorn. Acquiring these properties for public ownership enhances access to surrounding public lands and opens opportunities for hunting upland game birds and big game. The lands will be managed by the Applegate Field Office.

•    Mule Deer Winter Range:  Purchase of this 280-acre parcel along U.S. Highway 395 south of Susanville, California, will allow conservation of crucial mule deer wintering habitat along an important migration corridor. The newly acquired land, managed by the Eagle Lake Field Office, will also greatly improve public recreation access to the northern slope of the Diamond Mountains, a northern extension of the Sierra Nevada range.

•    Bald Mountain Special Recreation Area: This 760-acre property managed by the Eagle Lake Field Office will improve access to a popular recreation area offering 20 miles of equestrian, hiking, and mountain biking trails. The area lies between the Lassen County communities of Janesville and Standish. The acquisition opens access to the trails from the east side of Bald Mountain, complementing existing west side access. Bald Mountain provides users with expansive views of the Honey Lake Valley and a great spot to enjoy the sunrise over the Lassen County high desert.

•    California National Historic Trail: The Rush Creek parcel, 800 acres of high desert east of U.S. Highway 395 near Susanville, preserves portions of the Nobles Emigrant Trail, a segment of the California National Historic Trail. Managed by the Eagle Lake Field Office, the property contains lush stream corridors and supports greater sage grouse, pronghorn, migratory birds, raptors, and fish. It also offers excellent public access for hunting, fishing, hiking, and photography. This acquisition provides protection from potential development and includes water rights, bolstering resource resilience for the future. 

•    Guthrie Creek Expansion: The BLM has acquired the Guthrie Creek parcel adjacent to Lost Coast Headlands, an onshore unit of the California Coastal National Monument. The 143-acre parcel located west of Ferndale is managed by the Arcata Field Office and features a half mile of coastline, beach access, grasslands, coastal bluffs, and an untouched section of Guthrie Creek. Its forest teems with wildlife such as blacktail deer and black bears. Additionally, the parcel offers potential for expanding the Guthrie Creek Trail, creating new opportunities for coastal trail recreation access.

Since 2021, the BLM Northern California District has completed a total of 15 acquisition projects, securing more than 4,100 acres of new public land, comprising about $5 million in total funding. These acquisitions contribute to the nearly $44 million in planned expenditures to acquire approximately 14,000 acres for public ownership within the BLM Northern California District by the end of 2024.

These efforts, supported by the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the State of California Off-Highway Vehicle Fund, aim to preserve critical habitats, enhance recreational access, and protect vital ecosystems across Northern California and northwestern Nevada. The LWCF also provides grants to state and local governments for acquiring and developing new outdoor recreation opportunities. These accomplishments also contribute to the 30 by 30 initiative, a national goal to conserve 30 percent of America’s lands and waters by 2030.
 

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Does narrowed question in Trump immunity…

U.S. Supreme Court

Does narrowed question in Trump immunity case benefit special counsel? Some commentators think so

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 29, 2024, 3:09 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court avoided former President Donald Trump’s most extreme arguments—including that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for any acts while in office—when it crafted the question presented in its grant of certiorari Wednesday in the special counsel’s case over efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

This is the question presented as crafted by the Supreme Court: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

What is the significance of the narrowed question? Some commentators think that it benefits special counsel Jack Smith.

In a social media thread on X, formerly known as Twitter, Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, noted that the question focuses on official acts and presidential immunity, rather than absolute immunity.

Goldsmith sees the language as indicating that the high court might be considering a subset of official acts for which a president might get immunity. Those acts could be core functions under Article II or a subset of presidential powers. He speculates that acts carrying immunity might include pardons, firing of officials and self-defensive military action.

“But such a ruling wouldn’t come close to giving POTUS a blank check in office since most official acts would not be core Article II functions,” Goldsmith wrote.

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, also attributes significance to the phrasing of the question presented.

“My own view is that the [question presented] is written rather carefully to narrow exactly what the court is doing, both to cut out of the case entirely some of Trump’s more … extreme … arguments (like double jeopardy) and to also signal that the court is focused on the official acts question (strongly implying that it has no interest in recognizing any broader immunity),” Vladeck wrote in a Q&A on his One First Substack site.

Even if Trump wins on the narrowed question, there is room for Smith to go forward with the prosecution based on nonofficial acts, Vladeck wrote.

A column in the Washington Post agrees that the “official acts” language means that the Supreme Court could rule for Trump and still leave discretion for Smith to argue that trying to overthrow an election is not an official act.

In a Lawfare blog post written before the cert grant, Martin S. Lederman, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, elaborates on why he thinks that there is no serious argument that Trump was acting in his official capacity when he engaged in the alleged conduct.

“For starters,” Lederman wrote, “all but one of the counts of the indictment allege that Trump conspired with others to violate the law through fraudulent conduct. And, with one discrete exception, Trump’s alleged agreements to commit such fraud were with persons outside the government”—including, apparently, four lawyers.

“It’s very hard to see how Trump’s agreements with the five private parties might have been undertaken in his official capacity as president of the United States,” Lederman wrote.

Even if there was such a rare case, “under no possible understanding of a president’s proper role” would an official presidential duty include entering into an agreement to defraud the United States and obstruct its proceedings, he wrote.

Even if the Supreme Court paves the way for prosecution, the timing of its decision could be critical, according to three commentators writing at MSNBC. If the Supreme Court rules in late June, the trial might not begin until September, “making a verdict before the election difficult, if not impossible.”

The MSNBC authors are Norman Eisen, a former House Judiciary Committee impeachment counsel; Joshua Kolb, a former Senate Judiciary Committee law clerk; and Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21.