BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

KENNETH MEDENBACH, 

 Defendant.

3:16-CR-00051-BR-16

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT MEDENBACH’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (#505)

 The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 505), 

filed by defendant Medenbach. For the reasons set forth below, defendant Medenbach’s 

Motion should be denied. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 571 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 3
Government’s Response to Defendant Medenbach’s Motion to Dismiss (#505) Page 2

I. Legal Argument 

 Defendant Medenbach moves to dismiss this case on the grounds that: (1) the Property 

Clause of the United States Constitution “has been consistently misinterpreted by the federal 

courts to include public lands;” and (2) The federal courts’ interpretation of the Property Clause 

is “inconsistent with the intent of the framers to preserve the sovereignty of the States.” (Def.’s 

Mot., 1,3).1

 Federal courts have previously rejected similar claims by defendant Medenbach on at 

least two occasions. First, in United States v. Medenbach, No. 96-30168, 1997 WL 306437, at 

*2 (9th Cir. June 2, 1997) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit stated: 

Medenbach contends that the federal government lacks power to regulate Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest because the State of Washington never consented to 

federal jurisdiction over the land for purposes of the Federal Enclave Clause. 

The state’s consent is not a prerequisite to federal regulation of federal lands 

when Congress acts pursuant to its plenary power under the Property Clause. 

Nevada v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545, 1554 (9th Cir. 1990). To the contrary, 

Congress may exercise its expansive regulatory powers under the Property Clause 

regardless of whether it has acquired consent to jurisdiction under the Federal 

Enclave Clause. Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-43 (1976) (emphasis 

in original). 

Second, just last month in a separate criminal case, Judge Michael McShane denied 

defendant Medenbach’s motions to dismiss related to the Property Clause. In United States v. 

Medenbach, No. 1:15-cr-00407-MC, 2016 WL 1394440, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 7, 2016), Judge 

McShane wrote: 

Defendant’s first motion to dismiss, ECF No. 31, contends that the U.S. 

Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to “own public 

 

1

 The Property Clause provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all 

needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United 

States.” U.S. Const. art IV, § 3, cl. 2. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 571 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 3
Government’s Response to Defendant Medenbach’s Motion to Dismiss (#505) Page 3

lands in the states,” and that “the power to own public lands in the states” is 

reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. Mot. Dis. 1, ECF No. 31. 

Defendant’s argument has no merit. When the Constitution delegates power to 

Congress, the Tenth Amendment “expressly disclaims any reservation of that 

power to the States.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156 (1992). 

Here, the Constitution, through the Property Clause, gives Congress the power to 

“dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory 

or other Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const., art IV, § 3, cl 2. 

Congress’s power over public land is “without limitations.” Kleppe v. New 

Mexico, 426 529, 539 (1976) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Congress 

‘may deal with [its] lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his 

farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.’” United States v. 

Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Light v. United States, 220 

U.S. 523, 536 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted by Gardner)). 

Therefore, “under the Property Clause, the United States can administer its federal 

lands any way it chooses.” Id. 

Finally, in responding to defendant Medenbach’s Motion, the government relies on the 

legal arguments set forth in the Government’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for 

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 570), as both motions to dismiss raise similar (and 

unmeritorious) claims based on the Property Clause. 

II. Conclusion 

 For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that defendant 

Medenbach’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. 

 Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May 2016. 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Craig J. Gabriel 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 571 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 3