October Term 2003 · Docket 03-101
Does the BLM duty to maintain land cover specific wilderness areas?
The dispute centers on whether the Bureau of Land Management must protect designated wilderness areas under its general land management mandate.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The agency argued its duty does not require maintaining specific wilderness areas.
The alliance argued the agency must maintain designated wilderness areas.
The Chief Justice asked if the duty depends on the specific harms involved.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 4-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 4-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the Bureau of Land Management's statutory duty to maintain public lands. the sides that brought the case argue this duty does not require protecting specific wilderness areas. the opposing sides claim the agency must maintain these designated places.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 4-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 4-7
What each side wants
The agency wants the court to limit its duty to general land management.
The alliance wants the court to require protection of specific wilderness areas.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
What each side says
The agency argues its duty does not mandate maintaining specific wilderness areas.
The alliance argues the agency must maintain designated wilderness areas under its mandate.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice asked if the duty depends on the specific harms involved.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 4-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 4-7
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal land management duties. It determines whether agencies must protect specific wilderness areas. The outcome shapes how public lands receive legal protection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 4-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 4-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-57 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 45-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.