The intent of this post is not political, but rather to simply make readers aware that the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision that the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy Project was not happy with. I am not taking a position for/against, just passing information.

Here's a copy/paste of the email I received:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a very disappointing decision.

In a blow to rail-trails, the Court ruled (8-1) against the U.S. Government’s interest in a former rail corridor that runs through land it used to own.

The case focused on a former rail line in Wyoming, most of which was converted to the Medicine Bow Rail Trail.

The Court ruled that the United States did not retain a “reversionary interest” in the railroad corridor after conveying the adjacent lands to private owners.

While our legal team is taking a closer look at the decision—and its implications for other rail-trails—here’s what we do know:
•This decision reversed a lower court ruling that the U.S. has a "reversionary interest" in a portion of a federally granted rail corridor that now runs through private land;
•The case (Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States) will be sent back to a lower court;
•This decision does not affect rail-trails that are on “railbanked” corridors (rail corridors that are preserved under the federal “railbanking law” for future rail use by being converted to a trail in the interim). But this decision could open up certain non-railbanked corridors to more litigation.

Hey Robert,

Thanks for the link. Whenever a limited resource is at stake, this will be a never-ending argument. Research the history of any trail, especially the long national trails (e.g., PCT, AT, CDT, etc) and you'll always run into a clash of public vs private land ownership and when the use of eminent domain is appropriate and done in a fair way. The Continental Divide Trail is, to this day, still incomplete because of these unsettled arguments. Even at local and state levels this argument persists. Here in Houston, for example, they are trying to connect several trails/parks together (e.g., the Cypress Creek and Spring Creek Greenways), but constantly run into this same issue. Land ownership and homesteads are a fundamental right in this country, going way back into our history, so I don't envy the job the judges have to make in rendering these final controversial decisions.

I don't know the facts of this case and I'm not a lawyer, but in an era of divided politics I was surprised it was a 8-1 decision.

I agree with your last line. If there's a loophole, lawyers will try to find one (like trying to define what "is" is, lol).

Things are definitely changing as the world becomes more populated and stressed out. I predict these types of clashes between differing interest groups will rise as time moves on. It will be increasingly difficult to strike a balance. I was reminded of this battle this past weekend when I hiked the River Place Nature Trail and recalled that controversy. I also think about how Europe cut down almost all of their forests to support their historical growth and economy, or how the Amazon rainforest is being clear cut and the battle that rages in South America over it,and I hope we, Americans, have the wisdom to make better decisions.

On the one hand, I've seen State Parks close and sell off their land for various reasons (usually revenue-driven), which is sad, but I also see a push for new trails and green space to be opened up. I'm not sure how it all plays out in the end, but personally I am trying to see as many national and state parks and historical areas as quickly as possible while they (and I) are still around.

It's hard to say since we don't have access to the contract details, but it sounds to me like the government granted (gave, I assume) them the title to the land with the condition they could run a railroad through it (not anything else). So, now that the railroad isn't being utilized any longer, I presume the courts decided that land now belongs to the Brandts, not the Govt.

It really comes down to the terms and conditions of the grant. Maybe the government needs to learn to write and negotiate better contracts?