Opinion ID: 2997244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clearly Intended Substitutes

Text: In Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429 (1992), the Court considered the effect of the “Northwest Timber Compromise.” The Compromise, a part of the 1990 appropriations measures, was passed in response to controversy surrounding an endangered species—the northern spotted owl—and the logging industry in the Northwest. It established “a comprehensive set of rules to govern harvesting” in thirteen national forests. Id. at 433. The Compromise bears no resemblance to the 2003 and 2004 appropriations measures. Rather than simply denying funding, it created a detailed system to replace portions of other substantive legislation.3 In short, it fell directly under what we 3 The Robertson Court described the Northwest Timber Compromise as follows: “The Compromise both required harvesting and expanded harvesting restrictions. Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) required the Forest Service and the BLM respectively to offer for sale specified quantities of timber from the affected lands before the end of fiscal year 1990. On the other hand, subsections (b)(3) and (b)(5) (continued...) No. 01-2167 7 described above as a “clearly intended substitute” for portions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other substantive environmental legislation. In arriving at its holding, the Court noted that the Compromise “provided by its terms that compliance with certain new law constituted compliance with certain old law, the intent to modify was not only clear, but express.” Id. at 440 (emphasis in original).