Page One

TheLitigatorRadical Environmental Groups Target Grazing

MSLF FIGHTS FOR WESTERN RANCHERS! Two ranching organizations, an Arizona ranch, and an Arizona rancher urged an Arizona federal district court to grant them summary judgment and to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two radical environmental groups demanding that grazing permits be revoked and sub-jected to lengthy federal environmen-tal review. The two groups claim the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when it reau-thorized several grazing permits that allow ranchers to graze their livestock on nearby federal lands as they have done for several generations by failing to conduct full-blown environmental impact statements (EISs) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to reissuing the permits. The Arizona Cattle Growers’ As-sociation, Public Lands Council, Orme Ranch, Inc., and Bert Teskey, all repre-sented by MSLF, maintain that Congress made clear that no EISs are required and that the Forest Service could make use of the “categorical exclusion” (CE) provision set forth in federal law. MSLF sought to intervene on behalf of its clients in November 2011; its motion to intervene was granted within twenty-four hours. MSLF believes that the lawsuit is an attempt to kill grazing on western federal lands and thus destroy a critical component of the rural west, which is essential to the wildlife and scenic values enjoyed by all Americans. In its motion for summary judg-ment, MSLF asserted that, because, days before MSLF filed its brief, the environ-

mental groups dropped seven specific charges, the federal district court must issue judgment for MSLF’s clients as to those charges. As to all other counts of the complaint that remain, MSLF argues that the Forest Service complied fully with federal law and that judgment

should be entered for MSLF’s clients. Specifically, MSLF concluded that the Forest Service properly used the 2005 Statutory CE in issuing all eight challenged deci-sions and that the court should grant

summary judgment in favor of MSLF’s clients and should deny the motion for summary judgment filed by the envi-ronmental groups. MSLF complained that the actions of the environmental groups in dismiss-ing seven of their original counts were “particularly egregious” in light of the fact that the Forest Service was required to expend significant taxpayer dollars, not to mention time that could be expended on other important projects, compil-ing the administrative record for the decisions that the groups decided, days before their first brief was due, they no longer wished to challenge. Even worse, MSLF’s client, Bert Tesky, spe-cifically intervened to defend the Forest Service’s decisions relating to specific allotments because of his substantial financial interest in grazing livestock on those allotments. As a result, Mr. Tesky needlessly expended time and energy assisting MSLF in preparing his case. In its motion for summary judg-ment, MSLF labeled the environmental

Summer 2012The Litigatoris published quarterly byMountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundationdedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org

groups’ “blind, shotgun approach to drafting complaints” as “highly sus-pect.” In fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Forest Service, without conduct-ing environmental reviews pursuant to NEPA, reauthorized several grazing permits on lands managed by the Forest Service. In August 2011, the Western Watersheds Project and the Center For Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit alleging that 17 of the reauthoriza-tions—seven in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona, three in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona, six in the Prescott National Forest in Arizona, and one in the Coronado National Forest in New Mexico—violated NEPA. The lawsuit was filed despite the clear intent of Congress that the Forest Service is not required to do the reviews. In 2005, Congress categorically excluded reauthorization of grazing per-mits from NEPA under certain circum-stances, not to exceed 900 allotments.

Page Two

COLORADO TAXPAYERS SUE OVER RIGHTS

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSS

WEB PAGE POLL Visitors to MSLF’s web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to the following question: “Secretary Salazar closed over a million acres of federal land to uranium mining even though America gets 90% of its uranium from abroad. Is that right?” One hundred percent (100%) said, “Not only is the Secretary’s order unconstitutional and illegal, it leaves us at the mercy of Russia.” Zero percent (0%) said, “Although there is no evidence that the Grand Canyon may be harmed, the risk is too great.” Vote on the new question at MSLF’s web site today! Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLF’s precedent-setting, nation-ally-significant litigation is to check MSLF’s highly acclaimed web site. MSLF’s web site is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updates on MSLF’s “Legal Cases” and “Press Releases.”

Did you know that you might be able to double your gift for free? Thousands of companies match their employee’s charitable contributions. Matching gifts play a key role in help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Please ask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your human re-sources or personnel department to see if your company will match your gift to MSLF. Then, each time you mail your gift, please include a matching gift form from your employer. MSLF will do the rest!

PENDLEY’S VIEW In a recent speech in Nevada, Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, the wildlife biolo-gist who blew the whistle on the junk science used to list “the so-called Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse,” says problems with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) go far beyond a lack of effective peer review. First, because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has no consis-tent thresholds, its use of the terms “species,” “sub-species,” and “dis-tinct population segment” is highly subjective. Dr. Ramey argues, only half jokingly, that applying the FWS’s approach to Homo sapiens would yield numerous subspecies and distinct population segments of mankind. Second, as sage grouse litigation in Wyoming illustrates, the FWS and environmental groups label a species “imperiled” in one location despite its vitality elsewhere; plus, they make the same argument for species’ “pe-ripheral populations” that are natu-rally at risk because the species have colonized—perhaps during unique climatic conditions—historically inhospitable areas. Finally, species advocates use national boundaries to create pockets of “imperiled” species that thrive across the border. “Scientific findings” historically meant “reproducible” findings, but not for the FWS, which uses models to predict conditions 30 to 100 years hence! Furthermore, the agency relies on published studies that are incestu-ous or self-serving (posted online by environmental groups, e.g.) and for which the underlying data are never made public. The FWS’s greatest defi-ciency, however, is a conflict of inter-est: its work is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with group think, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power, and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them. Congress, a federal judge, and ex-perts worldwide question the FWS’s approach, but meaningful change will not come in time for areas targeted by the FWS and environmental groups.

With MSLF as its attorney, a Colo-rado group that defends taxpayers’ rights sued two Colorado bodies and their officials for violating the Colorado Constitution’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). The TABOR Foundation alleged in Denver County Court that its members should have been allowed to vote on $100 million in new taxes and $300 million in new government bonds imposed by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise, a government-owned busi-ness enterprise created by the Funding Advancements for Surface Transporta-tion and Economic Recovery (FASTER) Act in 2009. The lawsuit names the Colorado Bridge Enterprise, Colorado Transpor-tation Commission, which oversees the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Bridge Enterprise, and its members. The lawsuit seeks declara-

tory and injunctive relief and refund of all taxes collected along with interest, as required by TABOR. In 2009, the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 09-

108 (FASTER), which created the Colorado Bridge Enterprise—a government-owned business to repair and to maintain bridges in Colorado. Previously, that work was per-formed by CDOT, which is overseen

by an 11-member board; that board now also oversees the Bridge Enter-prise. In addition, CDOT’s Executive Director is the Director of the Bridge Enterprise and CDOT’s CFO is CFO of the Bridge Enterprise. Colorado’s Independence Insti-tute exposed FASTER’s constitutional deficiencies in two studies published in 2011, one by Richard Sokol and one by Tom Ryan.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed a decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and ruled in favor of the First Amendment rights of Cali-fornia workers, consistent with a friend of the court brief filed by MSLF and Pa-cific Legal Foundation (PLF), for them-selves, the Cato Institute, and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. MSLF and PLF urged that the Court overturn a ruling that the First Amendment rights of the non-members of a union, which is their collective bargaining agent, were not violated when they were denied the ability to object to assessment of new fees for political purposes. Dianne Knox and fellow employ-ees, on behalf of themselves and others, challenged a special assessment that the Service Employees International Union used for political purposes. The non-members argued that the new assess-ment was contrary to a 1986 Supreme Court ruling and violated their con-

stitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled that, prior to new expenditures for political purposes, unions must obtain the affirmative consent of non-members. Legal scholars believe that Justice Alito’s discussion of the non-members’ First Amendment rights foreshadows greater speech rights vis-à-vis unions. California recognizes the Service Employees Interna-tional Union as the exclusive bargain-ing agent for State employ-ees, which must protect the right of nonmembers to pay only fees directly related to collective bar-gaining, and not those related to political activities of the union. To protect non-members’ First Amendment rights, the union must provide non-members notice of expenditures for political activities.

Page Three

UNION LOSES TO NON-MEMBER SPEECH SUPREME SHOCKER!

MONTANANS GET WIN AT HIGH COURT!

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in its final decision of the October 2011 Term, to uphold ObamaCare was not surprising. All those who questioned the unprecedent-ed legislation’s constitutionality knew that it would be an uphill battle to win five votes for the proposition that the statute violated both the Commerce

Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. What

shocked the Nation was that the fifth vote to

uphold the law came from Chief Justice Roberts and that the majority’s basis was Congress’s power to levy taxes.

Granted the Court accepted the arguments lodged by MSLF in its friend of the court brief that the United States is a government of limited and enu-merated powers and that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause provides Congress the power to compel every American to purchase health care insurance or pay a fine. In the future, the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts joined together with that of the four dissenting justices may provide legal authority for attack-ing federal legislation; however, for now, ObamaCare is the law of the land on the perverse rationale that the “pen-alty” was in reality a “tax” and that, because Congress has the power to tax, it may impose the individual mandate and all that flowed from it. MSLF also filed friend of the court briefs at district and appellate courts.

The Montana Petroleum Association (MPA) celebrated a victory before the Montana Supreme Court in a lawsuit filed by two environmental groups, when Montana’s highest court upheld the ruling of a Montana state district court that Montana complied with state law in approving new gas wells. With MSLF as its attorney, MPA intervened in the lawsuit filed to contest a chal-lenge to the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation’s approval of 23 infill natural gas wells in eastern Montana. The groups challenged the adequacy of an environmental study and its analyses of the impact of oil and gas development on sage grouse. In 1915, a natural gas field was discovered in the Cedar Creek Anticline in Fallon and Carter Counties in eastern Montana. In 1925, gas production be-gan, and, by 1995, the Cedar Creek gas field consisted of 150 wells producing 10 billion cubic-feet of natural gas per year. Since 1995, both the number of wells and the gas produced have increased sig-

nificantly. Before 1997, gas well spacing rules limited development to one well per 320 acres. In 1997, well spacing was increased to one well per 160 acres. In 2003, well spacing was again increased to one well per 32 acres, which spacing continues today. In 1989, a programmatic environ-mental impact statement was prepared by the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation as to oil and gas drilling in Montana. Pursuant to that study, as of 2008, more than 1,100 wells had been drilled; the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation estimates an average of an additional 71 wells will be added to the field per year. In August 2008, the Board issued en-vironmental assessments for 23 new gas wells proposed by Fidelity Exploration and Production Company in the Cedar Creek gas field. The lawsuit was filed in October 2008. After discovery and various motions, a hearing was held in Fallon County in May 2010. In July 2011, the state district court issued its ruling.

KEEP READING! The Litigator, MSLF’s quarterly newsletter, is the indispensable tool for staying informed regarding the latest in MSLF’s precedent-setting, nationally-significant, public-interest litigation. The Litigator is mailed on the first of February, May, August, and November. Ensure that you keep receiving The Litigator by con-tributing $25 annually.

Page Four

MSLF and Your Will: Privacy Protected! MSLF hopes you will remember MSLF in your will to permit it to perform its vital mission in perpetuity. (Remember Ronald Reagan’s warning: “Freedom is never more than one gen-eration away from extinction.”) MSLF would also like to learn of your decision to include MSLF in your will so MSLF can recognize you as a member of MSLF’s Legacy Society.

MSLF recognizes that your decision is an immensely personal one and that you have the right to change your mind regarding the beneficiaries of your property. MSLF respects your privacy and your rights!

Not Cost of a Gift; But After-Tax Cost! An MSLF supporter, in the 28% tax bracket, considers a contribution of $10,000, either in cash or appreciated securities with a cost basis of $2,000 (an $8,000 gain):

Cash SecuritiesContribution $10,000 $10,000

Income tax saved $2,800 $2,800

Capital gains 0 $1,200*taxes saved

After-tax cost of gift $7,200 $6,000

*Assumes a 15% long-term capital gains tax.

Become a “Legacy Society Founder.” Eligibility Ends in December 2013! At MSLF’s national headquarters in suburban Denver, a place of honor is reserved for those patriots who have designated MSLF as a beneficiary of their estates. Scores of long-time supporters have advised MSLF that the following language has been included in their wills to ensure MSLF can continue its battles in defense of constitutional liberties and the rule of law in perpetuity:

I [name], of [city, state, ZIP] give, devise and bequeath to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), (tax identification number 84-0736725) 2596 South Lewis Way, Lakewood, Colorado 80227, [written dollar amount or percentage of the estate or description of the property] to continue its mission to protect and preserve individ-ual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

Each one of these dedicated supporters is recognized with an embossed, bronze name plate honoring each for his or her selfless devotion to the cause of freedom. In ad-dition, because they were among the first to advise MSLF of their decision to put MSLF in their wills, each one is recognized as a “Legacy Society Founder.”

MSLF knows that these men and women and families are not the only ones to in-clude MSLF in their wills. In fact, experts advise that, for every individual who informs MSLF of his decision to make a bequest in MSLF’s name, there are another four individ-uals whose decision to do so becomes known to MSLF only after their death. Because MSLF wishes to learn of every decision to provide for MSLF in perpetuity, MSLF will recognize every supporter who advises MSLF that it is included in his or her will as a “Legacy Society Founder.” MSLF will keep this opportunity open through the end of 2013 to ensure that the maximum number of supporters, many of whom have already included MSLF in their wills, will step forward.

Please use the enclosed coupon to advise MSLF that you have included MSLF in your will. Print your name as you want it to appear as a “Legacy Society Founder.”

Federal Estate Taxes Not a Problem? States Tax Inheritances and Estates! Although federal estate taxes are not currently a problem for most Americans— experts say 1 in 300 Americans will be affected by federal estate taxes given the five million dollar exemption—state death and inheritances taxes are an increasing concern. Today, twenty-two (22) states have some form of “death tax” or “inheritance tax” and some are strikingly similar to the federal estate tax. It is not enough to consider your state of residence because your out-of-state real property could be subject to that state’s death or inheritance taxes. Charitable bequests reduce these taxes.

CanYou Have Your Cake & Eat It Too? YES: By Using a Retained Life Estate! A retained life estate works for MSLF supporters who would like to use their homes to support MSLF’s defense of constitutional liberties and the rule of law but want to live in their homes for life. A retained life estate works if you:

• Plan to make a major gift to MSLF after your lifetime;• Enjoy living in your home and plan to live there forever;• Want to retain the rights and responsibilities of home ownership;• Like the idea of immediate tax relief.

The amount of your income tax deduction depends, in part, on the value of the property and your age.

Please consult your tax advisor. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Page Five

A Charitable Gift Annuity Helps MSLF & Provides Many Benefits A Charitable Gift Annuity (CGA) is a simple contract in which you agree to donate cash, stocks, or other assets to MSLF, in return for which MSLF agrees to pay you (and someone else, if you desire) a fixed amount each year for the rest of your life.

A CGA not only provides support for MSLF’s aggressive litiga-tion, it also provides you with these benefits:

• Your initial gift to MSLF is partially income tax–deductible when you itemize on your tax return.

• Your CGA payments (annual, semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly) are partially income tax–free throughout your estimated life expectancy.

• Your CGA payments are not affected by ups and downs in the economy.

• You may provide that the payments be for one or two people; your spouse or another loved one can receive payments for life.

• You may defer the start of your CGA payments.• You can usually eliminate capital gains tax on a portion of

the gift and spread the rest of the gain over your life expec-tancy, if you transfer appreciated stock to MSLF.

Additional matters to consider:• You can use Series E and Series H bonds, as well as some-

Series EE and Series HH bonds that have stopped earning interest to fund a CGA.

• You can use a CGA for “low-cost profit taking” on long-term capital gain assets that have improved in the stock-market.

• You can use a CGA to switch stocks into a fixed income part of your portfolio, with about half the capital gains recognition stretched over your lifetime in many cases.

• You can use a deferred CGA, which allows you to now select the date payments begin, to yield even larger deduc-tions and tax benefits.

• Your tax bill on 2010 Roth IRA conversion income reported in 2011 and 2012 can be reduced by a large charitable deduction provided by a CGA.

Please consult your tax advisor. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Shocking: 85% of Americans Give to Charity; 6% Name One in Their Wills Almost as shocking is that more than 60 percent of adults living in households with children do NOT have wills.

You need a will if:• You are married;• You have minor children or ailing parents;• You own real estate:• You own a business; or• You support MSLF!

You need to revise your will if there are changes in your:• Marital status;• Desired executor or guardian;• Finances;• Beneficiaries;• State of residence;• Tax laws;• Children’s financial needs; or• Degree of support for MSLF!

Estate planning advisors recommend leaving a charity “tax-burdened assets” such as:

• U.S. Savings Bonds;• IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(G)s, and other deferred compensation;• Accounts receivable;• Installment payments on land sale contracts;• Unpaid commissions; or• Commercial annuities;

which permits income tax-free assets to pass to your heirs. For example, retirement plan assets are subject to income and maybe estate taxes when left to your family. The income tax bill can reduce your retirement plan by as much as 35 percent. Compare two treatments of a $100,000 retire-ment plan.

Contact your retirement plan administrator for a change-of-beneficiary form, name MSLF with the percentage that you choose, and return the form to your plan administrator.

Retirement plans are complex, please consult with your retirement plan administrator and tax advisor. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Remainder toMSLF

Income tax deductionFixed payments

Gift to MSLF

Donor

CharitableGift

Annuity

1

2

3

1

2

3

You transfer cash, securities, or other property to MSLF.

You receive an income tax deduction and may save capital gains tax.

MSLF pays a fixed amount each year to you or to anyone you name for life.Typically, a portion of these payments is tax-free.

When the gift annuity ends, its remaining principal passes to MSLF.

Chosen beneficiary Your Family MSLF

Value of retirement plan $100,000 $100,000

Federal income tax $35,000 0 (35% marginal tax bracket)

Net paid to beneficiary $65,000 $100,000

Page Six

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) Is A Nonprofit, Public-Interest Legal Foundation, That Is A 501(c)(3) Organization,Since Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions to MSLF Are Tax Deductible!

MSLF CANNOT REST; ITS ROLE ESSENTIAL TO REMAINING FREE In 2012, MSLF will have been going to court for 35 years, fighting to compel compliance with the commands of the Constitution and federal law to ensure that America remains a nation of laws. At no time during these three plus decades has the need for MSLF to go to court on behalf of those who could not afford legal representation been less-ened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy has grown and as federal laws have become more far-reaching and intrusive, MSLF’s caseload has increased dramati-cally. That is obvious from a review of the scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is Vital If there is one lesson MSLF has learned over the past 35 years, it is that, regardless of which party occupies the White House or controls Congress, the threat to liberty remains and MSLF must be ready, willing, and able to go to court to defend freedom. As Thomas Jeffer-son once said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” One of the prices that must be paid for MSLF to remain vigi-lant is the price that tens of thousands of Americans pay annually by making their tax-deductible contributions to MSLF and its litigation. The support of MSLF by tens of thousands of Americans committed to freedom could not be more important. Your support will ensure that MSLF remains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and the judge orders the federal government to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses).

MSLF’s sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of those who support its aggressive litigation program.

MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makes the contributions it receives tax deductible.

MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MSLF’s commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nation of laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.

MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution, strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hire legal counsel to protect their rights.

Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share ofone’s income.

Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.

At a time when many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have been eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by planned charitable giving have been increased!

Income Tax – Each year a person may deduct as much as 50 percent of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that limit is only 30 percent for gifts of appreciated property.

Estate Tax – A person who died in 2011 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,000,000; however, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Because federal estate taxes over $5,000,000 range from 37 percent to 50 percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $500 in taxes. Please consult your tax adviser. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLF’s brokerageaccount DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528, Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100; Denver, CO 80202.

(Adam J. Rehmer 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5095). Please notify MSLF BEFORE mak-ing the transfer; there is no way to identify a stock donor without prior notification.

Problem u

Solution u

Reason u

The Means u

Stock u

TransferInformation

GIFT: $ ____________ o $1000 o $500 o $250 o $100 o $50 o $25o Check Payable to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF)o Credit Card ___MC ___Visa ___Discover ___AmEx

Credit Card # _________________________________________________________________

CVV# (3 digit code on back of card) ___________________ Exp. Date _______________

Signature _____________________________________________________________________

NAME (Please print) _______________________________________________________________

ADDRESS ________________________________________________________________________

CITY ______________________________________STATE ____________ ZIP _______________

PHONE __________________________________________________________________________

EMAIL ___________________________________________________________________________o Yes, I want to help MSLF in its battles, including its fight against the Civil Rights Division.o I made my contribution in the amount of $50, or more. Please send me Injustice.o I have ADDED $10 to my $50 contribution; send me an autographed copy of Injustice.

MSLF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit legal foundation; contributions are tax-deductible pursuant to law.o I/We put MSLF in my/our will; (print name) _______________________________________.

Page Seven

LEGAL

ACTION

NOTABLE

QUOTES

n As urged by MSLF, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review an opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that, contrary to federal law, places all forestry roads under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. MSLF will file a brief on the merits.

n On behalf of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Petro-leum Association of Wyoming, MSLF filed a brief urging an Idaho federal district court to reject demands by an environmental group for sage grouse related restrictions on federal land use in Sublette County, Wyoming.

n A Texas psychologist, represented by MSLF, who was denied her First Amendment speech rights regarding

her profession, prevailed over at-tempts by the State of Texas to dismiss her civil rights lawsuit.

n A federal appeals court in Washing-ton, D.C., rejecting arguments by MSLF, dismissed a lawsuit challeng-ing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to impose “cap and trade” administratively.

n MSLF Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Steven J. Lechner, appeared in federal district court in Pennsylvania on behalf of an oil and gas associa-tion and the nation’s oldest family owned oil and gas company, to urge the district court to issue a permanent ruling against a sweetheart lawsuit settlement entered into by the Obama Administration.

n MSLF, seeking to sustain one of its earliest victories, filed a brief on behalf of itself and two Wyoming groups urging a Wyoming federal district court to mandate that the federal government manage wild horses in Wyoming in accordance with federal land and federal court rulings of over three decades ago.

n On behalf of three Alaska miners whose valuable claims were declared null and void illegally by federal of-ficials, MSLF urged an Alaska federal district court to order the reinstate-ment of the claims.

n MSLF urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a rul-ing by a Montana federal district court that the management plan developed by the Bureau of Land Management for a national monument in Montana complies with federal law.

n The Northwest Mining Association, with MSLF as its attorney, filed its brief opposing an attempt by the Obama Administration to dismiss its lawsuit challenging the legality of Secretary Salazar’s closure of a million acres of uranium rich land.

n MSLF, on behalf of several western groups, urged the Supreme Court of the United States to grant a peti-tion filed by the State of Wyoming to review the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that President Clinton’s “roadless rule” did not violate the Wilderness Act of 1964.

“Thanks for keeping us free.”Doug NelsonDixon, NM

“[Y]ou get results and do what you say.”Norma L. MillerDrewsey, OR

“Keepupthefightforfreedom.”George FancherDenver, CO

“I am happy that a victory for the 2nd Amendment is upheld”Michael GordonBurien, WA

“God bless you in all your work.”Lois A. SheffletteOxnard, CA

“Thank you … for the many important legal issues you pursue….”James C. MastenWhiteville, NC

“[Thanks for] your pursuit of what is right!”Harry H. PhillipsAmarillo, TX

“Keep up the good work.”Warren J. AdlerElmhurst, NY

HOLDER CONTEMPT In June, the U.S. House of Representa-tives voted to hold Attor-ney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over documents about the “Fast and Furious” scandal. It is the first ever such vote against a sitting cabinet officer. J. Christian Adams is not sur-prised and explains why in his exposé, Injustice, which is free with a $50 contribution to MSLF.

ARIZONA’S KEY PROVISION UPHELD BY UNANIMOUS COURT! The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously upheld an Arizona law that requires law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of individuals they stop who they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. In so ruling the Court reversed a ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, as urged by MSLF. In its friend of the court brief, MSLF asked the Supreme Court to reverse the April 2011 ruling, which, by 2-1, upheld an Arizona federal district court’s ruling that parts of S.B. 1070 are unconstitutional. Earlier, MSLF had asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling, which came in a lawsuit by the Obama Administration that followed lawsuits by the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the NAACP, and many others. In July 2010, the Arizona federal district court, disregarding a brief by MSLF, agreed with federal lawyers that the law conflicts with federal law and was preempted. By a vote of 5-3, over vigor-ous dissents, the Court held that three minor parts of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. Much of S.B. 1070 remains in place because those provisions were never challenged. MSLF believes that the provision upheld by the unanimous Court is essential to the ability of the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers to protect the safety of its citizens.

On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Janice K. Brewer signed Arizona S.B. 1070 into law. Arizona House Bill 2162 made additional changes to S.B. 1070 and was signed by Gover-nor Brewer on April 30, 2010. The intent of S.B. 1070 is, through

“cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws” “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local govern-ment agencies in Arizona” and “to discourage

and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlaw-

fully present in the United States.” After passage of S.B. 1070, seven lawsuits were filed challenging its constitutionality. In July 2010, the United States sued for a declaration that some provisions of S.B. 1070 are unconstitu-tional because they are preempted by federal law. Concurrently, the United States filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

In July 2010, the district court granted the United States’ motion, in part, and preliminarily enjoined various provisions of S.B. 1070. Governor Brewer appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments were conducted in November 2010, and, in April 2011, the three-judge panel ruled against Arizona. In August 2011, Governor Brewer sought Supreme Court review, which was granted in December 2011. Oral arguments took place in April 2012.

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage

PAID

Denver, CO

Permit No. 847

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227ADDRESS SERVICE REqUESTED

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERWilliam Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERSteven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENT–ADMINISTRATIONJanice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John R. Gibson, NV: ChairmanJohn J. Blomstrom, WY: Vice ChairmanFrank Priestley, ID; SecretaryPeter K. Ellison, UT; TreasurerStephen M. Brophy, AZDavid New, IDL. Jerald Sheffels, WADon Sparks, TX