{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:4e381c2aafc6fea4fb5591069fada55b29f130e5fcfb5382dfe66adb5e8b01f5","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"SUMMARY*","paragraphs":["para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559","para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566","para_567","para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631","para_632","para_633","para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654","para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660","para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669","para_670","para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692","para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712","para_713","para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723","para_724","para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737","para_738","para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742","para_743","para_744","para_745","para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749","para_750","para_751","para_752","para_753","para_754","para_755","para_756","para_757","para_758","para_759","para_760","para_761","para_762","para_763","para_764","para_765","para_766","para_767","para_768","para_769","para_770","para_771","para_772","para_773","para_774","para_775","para_776","para_777","para_778","para_779","para_780","para_781","para_782","para_783","para_784","para_785","para_786","para_787","para_788","para_789","para_790","para_791","para_792","para_793","para_794","para_795","para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803","para_804","para_805","para_806","para_807","para_808","para_809","para_810","para_811","para_812","para_813","para_814","para_815","para_816","para_817","para_818","para_819","para_820","para_821","para_822","para_823","para_824","para_825","para_826","para_827","para_828","para_829","para_830","para_831","para_832","para_833","para_834","para_835","para_836","para_837","para_838","para_839","para_840","para_841","para_842","para_843","para_844","para_845","para_846"],"kind":"summary"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"STATE OF IDAHO; IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"DEPARTMENT OF WATER","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"RESOURCES, an agency of the State","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"of Idaho; MATHEW WEAVER, in","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"his official capacity as the Director of","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"the Idaho Department of Water","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Resources,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"IDAHO HOUSE OF","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"REPRESENTATIVES; IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"SENATE; CHUCK WINDER; MIKE","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"MOYLE; JOYCE LIVESTOCK CO.;","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"LU RANCHING CO.; PICKETT","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"RANCH & SHEEP CO.; IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendants - Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"No. 25-947","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"1:22-cv-00236-","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"DCN","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"2 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"STATE OF IDAHO; IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"DEPARTMENT OF WATER","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"RESOURCES; MATHEW","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"WEAVER,","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"IDAHO HOUSE OF","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"REPRESENTATIVES, IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"SENATE, CHUCK WINDER, MIKE","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"MOYLE, JOYCE LIVESTOCK","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"CO., LU RANCHING","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"CO., PICKETT RANCH & SHEEP","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"CO., IDAHO FARM BUREAU","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"FEDERATION, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendants.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"No. 25-1191","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"1:22-cv-00236-","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"DCN","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"STATE OF IDAHO, IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"No. 25-1203","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"1:22-cv-00236-","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"DCN","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 3","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"DEPARTMENT OF WATER","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"RESOURCES, MATHEW","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"WEAVER,","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Defendants,","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"IDAHO HOUSE OF","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"REPRESENTATIVES; IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"SENATE; JASON MONKS, in his","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"official capacity as Majority Leader","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"of the House; KELLY ANTHON, in","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"his official capacity as President Pro","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Tempore of the Senate,","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendants - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"MIKE MOYLE, JOYCE","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"LIVESTOCK CO., LU RANCHING","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"CO., PICKETT RANCH & SHEEP","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"CO., IDAHO FARM BUREAU","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"FEDERATION, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendants.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"STATE OF IDAHO, IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"DEPARTMENT OF WATER","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"RESOURCES, MATHEW","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"No. 25-1214","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"1:22-cv-00236-","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"DCN","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"4 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"WEAVER,","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Defendants,","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"IDAHO FARM BUREAU","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"FEDERATION, INC.; JOYCE","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"LIVESTOCK CO.; LU RANCHING","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"CO.; PICKETT RANCH & SHEEP","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"CO.,","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendants - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"IDAHO HOUSE OF","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"REPRESENTATIVES, IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"SENATE, CHUCK WINDER, MIKE","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"MOYLE,","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Intervenor-Defendants.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"for the District of Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Argued and Submitted April 14, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Portland, Oregon","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Filed September 18, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Before: John B. Owens, Jennifer Sung, and Holly A.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Thomas, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Opinion by Judge Sung","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 5","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"SUMMARY*","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Water Rights / Idaho Law","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"In a suit brought by the United States against the State of","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Idaho and others challenging a series of Idaho statutes","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"known as the “stockwater amendments,” the panel","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"(1) affirmed the district court’s jurisdictional holdings,","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"(2) reversed the district court’s holding that Idaho Code","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"§ 42-224 is constitutional as applied to the United States, and","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(3) affirmed the district court’s holding that Idaho Code","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"§ 42-113(2)(b) is facially unconstitutional.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Idaho enacted the stockwater amendments after a state","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"court issued a final decree in the Snake River Basin","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Adjudication (“SRBA”), which confirmed thousands of","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"federal stockwater rights on federal land. The United States","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"argued that the stockwater amendments enacted standards","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"and procedures aimed at divesting the United States of its","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"SRBA-decreed stockwater rights.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"The panel affirmed the district court’s jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"holdings. First, the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction—","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"which provides that when one court is exercising in rem","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"jurisdiction, a second court will not assume in rem","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"jurisdiction over the same res—did not apply. Although the","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"doctrine is a mandatory jurisdictional limitation that applies","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"in the water rights context, it applies only to actions that are","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"in rem, and this action is not in rem. Second, the","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"requirements for Burford abstention—which allows federal","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"courts to decline to rule on an essentially local issue arising","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"6 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"out of a complicated state regulatory scheme—were not met,","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"and therefore the district court did not have discretion to","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"abstain.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"The panel reversed the district court’s holding that Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Code § 42-224—which establishes a procedure by which a","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"party can initiate an action to determine whether a holder of","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"stockwater rights has forfeited those rights—is","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"constitutional as applied to the United States. Reading the","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"stockwater amendments as a whole, the panel agreed with","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"the United States that § 42-224 is part of a statutory scheme","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"that is designed to divest the United States of its SRBA-","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"decreed water rights. Section 42-224 discriminates against","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"the United States in violation of the Supremacy Clause,","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"which generally immunizes the Federal Government from","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"state laws that directly regulate or discriminate against","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"it. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s denial","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"of the United States’ motion for summary judgment with","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"respect to its as-applied challenge to § 42-224.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Code § 42-113(2)(b)—which changes the appurtenance","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"rules for stockwater rights acquired under the state-law","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"constitutional method but only if those rights are associated","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"with grazing on federally owned or managed land—is","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"facially unconstitutional under the Supremacy","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Clause. Because § 42-113(2)(b) regulates only stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"rights associated with land owned by the United States and","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"creates a mechanism by which permittees can divest the","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"United States of its stockwater rights, § 42-113(2)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"unlawfully discriminates against the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 7","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"John L. Smeltzer (argued), Stephen G. Bartell, Thomas K.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Snodgrass, Jeffrey N. Candrian, and John E. Bies, Attorneys;","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Environment & Natural Resources Division; Adam R.F.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Gustafson, Acting Assistant Attorney General; United States","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Christine G.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"England, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice,","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"Boise, Idaho; for Plaintiff-Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Michael C. Orr (argued) and Joy M. Vega, Deputy Attorneys","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"General; Scott L. Campbell, Deputy Attorney General,","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Chief, Energy and Natural Resources Division; Raúl R.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"Labrador, Idaho Attorney General; Office of the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Attorney General, Boise, Idaho; for Defendants-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"Katy D. Riker, William G. Myers III, and Murray D.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Feldman, Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, Idaho; Norman M.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"Semanko, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Boise, Idaho; Kole W.","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Kelley and Ivan L. London, Mountain States Legal","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Foundation, Lakewood, Colorado; for Intervenor-","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"8 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"SUNG, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"This case concerns the constitutionality of a series of","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"Idaho statutes referred to as the “stockwater amendments.”","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Idaho enacted the stockwater amendments after a state court","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"issued a final decree in the Snake River Basin Adjudication","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"(“SRBA”), which confirmed thousands of federal","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"stockwater rights on federal land. The stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"amendments affect the United States’ stockwater rights in","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"multiple ways, including by changing rules, such as the","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"appurtenance rules for stockwater rights on federal land, and","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"by establishing new rules, such as a procedure for divesting","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"a rightsholder of its stockwater rights for alleged forfeiture.","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"The United States sued the State of Idaho, the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Department of Water Resources (“IDWR”), and the Director","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"of IDWR (collectively, “the State of Idaho”), alleging that","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"several provisions of the stockwater amendments are","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"unconstitutional. Two groups intervened as defendants:","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"(1) The Idaho House of Representatives, the Speaker of the","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"Idaho House, the Idaho Senate, and the President Pro","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Tempore of the Idaho Senate (collectively, “Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Legislature”), and (2) Joyce Livestock, Joyce Livestock Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"LU Ranching Co., Pickett Ranch & Sheep Co., and the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Farm Bureau Federation (collectively, “Ranchers”).","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"At summary judgment, the district court rejected","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"arguments that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims under","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"the doctrines of Rooker-Feldman, prior exclusive","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"jurisdiction, Burford abstention, and claim preclusion. On","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"the merits, the district court concluded that Idaho Code § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"224 is constitutional as applied to the United States, but that","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Idaho Code §§ 42-113(2)(b), 42-502, and 42-504 are facially","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 9","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"The United States appeals the district court’s conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"that § 42-224 is constitutional as applied. The State","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Defendants (the State of Idaho and the Idaho Legislature)","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"and Ranchers cross-appeal the district court’s conclusions","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"that it has jurisdiction and that § 42-113(2)(b) is facially","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"unconstitutional. We affirm the district court’s jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"holdings; reverse its holding that § 42-224 is constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"as applied to the United States; and affirm its holding that","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"§ 42-113(2)(b) is facially unconstitutional.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"A. The Taylor Grazing Act and SRBA","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"In 1934, Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act,","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"which provided for the division of public rangelands into","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"federal “grazing districts,” known as “allotments,” and","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits to","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"ranchers so they could graze livestock on federal lands. 43","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"U.S.C. §§ 315, 315b; see also Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt,","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"529 U.S. 728, 733-34 (2000).","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"In 1985, Idaho enacted legislation requiring a general","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"adjudication in state court of all water rights in the Snake","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"River Basin—the proceedings that became known as the","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"SRBA. See Idaho Code § 42-1406A (uncodified 1994).","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"From 1987 to 2014, the state court adjudicated hundreds of","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"thousands of water rights.","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"During the SRBA, the United States filed numerous","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"claims, including thousands of claims for stockwater rights","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"under the state-law “constitutional method” of","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"appropriation. Under that method, a party validly","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"appropriates stockwater by “putting it to beneficial use,” and","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"watering livestock qualifies as a beneficial use. Joyce","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"10 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Livestock Co. v. United States, 156 P.3d 502, 509, 512","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"(Idaho 2007).1","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"The SRBA court issued a final unified decree in 2014.","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"The final decree confirmed that the United States held","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"thousands of stockwater rights that it claimed under the","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"constitutional method. The final decree is “conclusive as to","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"the nature and extent of all water rights” with a priority date","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"before November 19, 1987 (subject to some unrelated","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"exceptions), and binding against all persons. In re SRBA","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"Case No. 39576 Subcase No. 37-00864, 429 P.3d 129, 133","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"(Idaho 2018); Idaho Code § 42-1420(1).","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"B. Joyce Livestock","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"When the United States filed its constitutional method","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"claims for stockwater rights during the SRBA, it informed","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"its federal permittees of its claims, and most neither objected","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"nor filed competing claims. But some permittees, including","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"the Joyce Livestock Company (“Joyce”), did so.","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"Joyce argued that, because its predecessor had first","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"watered livestock on federal land in 1898, before the federal","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"government established its permitting program, its","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"predecessor acquired stockwater rights under the","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"constitutional method. Joyce Livestock Co., 156 P.3d at 505.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"It was undisputed that the United States had not “used any","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"of the water at issue to water its [own] livestock.” Id. at 519.","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"The United States argued that it acquired water rights merely","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"by owning and managing the land used by Joyce and its","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"predecessors. Id. at 506, 518.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"1 The constitutional method of appropriation generally requires both","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"diversion of water from the water source and beneficial use, but no actual","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"diversion is needed to establish a valid appropriative water right for","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"livestock watering. Joyce, 156 P.3d at 508.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 11","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"The Idaho Supreme Court held that the United States did","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"not acquire water rights merely by owning and managing the","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"land. Id. at 518–19. It then explained that the United States","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"did not own the rights acquired by Joyce or its predecessors.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"The court recognized that the United States had “permitted","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"ranchers to graze their livestock on public lands” with","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"“implied license” before the enactment of the Taylor","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"Grazing Act and with “express permission” afterwards. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"at 519 (citation omitted). But, the court explained, “[u]nder","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Idaho law, a landowner does not own a water right obtained","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"by an appropriator using the land with the landowner’s","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"permission unless the appropriator was acting as agent of the","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"owner in obtaining that water right.” Id. And, in the Joyce","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"litigation, the United States “d[id] not contend that any of the","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"ranchers who obtained the water rights at issue did so as an","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"agent of the United States.” Id. Because the United States","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"did not argue that Joyce or its predecessors acted as its","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"agents, the court’s opinion in Joyce does not address whether","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"or when an agency relationship between the United States","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"and federal grazing permittees exists.","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"C. The Stockwater Amendments","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"In 2017, several years after the SRBA court issued the","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"final unified decree, Idaho repealed and replaced “Chapter","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"5” of its water code. See 2017 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 178","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"(adopting Idaho Code §§ 42-501 to 42-506). As amended,","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"§ 42-501 states: “It is the intent of the Legislature to codify","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"and enhance . . . important points of law from the Joyce case","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"to protect Idaho stockwater right holders from encroachment","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"by the federal government in navigable and nonnavigable","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"waters.” Idaho Code § 42-501 (“Legislative Intent”); see","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"also 2017 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 178. Idaho made relevant","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"amendments to Chapter 5 and other parts of the water code","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"in 2018, 2020, and 2022. See 2018 Idaho Sess. Laws, Chs.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"12 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"146 & 320; 2020 Idaho Sess. Laws, Ch. 253; 2022 Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"Sess. Laws, Ch. 215. These statutory changes are referred to","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"collectively as the “stockwater amendments.”","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"The United States contends that the stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"amendments do not merely codify Joyce but instead enact","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"standards and procedures aimed at divesting the United","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"States of its SRBA-decreed stockwater rights. Specifically,","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"the United States challenges four statutory provisions","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"enacted or modified by those amendments: Idaho Code","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"§§ 42-224, 42-113(2)(b), 42-502, and 42-504.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"Under § 42-224, the stockwater amendments establish a","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"procedure by which a party can initiate an action to","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"determine whether a holder of stockwater rights has forfeited","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"those rights under Idaho Code § 42-222(2). Section 42-","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"222(2) was first enacted in 1903, and it provides that a","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"stockwater right is “lost and forfeited by a failure for the term","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"of five (5) years to apply it to the beneficial use for which it","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"was appropriated.” Under the new procedure established by","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"the stockwater amendments, if the Director of the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"Department of Water Resources receives “a petition . . . that","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"a stockwater right has not been put to beneficial use for a","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"term of five (5) years,” the Director must determine whether","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"the petition “presents prima facie evidence that the","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"stockwater right has been lost through forfeiture pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"section 42-222(2).” Id. § 42-224(1). If so, the Director must","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"issue an order to show cause why the right has not been","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"forfeited. Id. § 42-224(2). Under § 42-224(4), “[i]f the order","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"affects a stockwater right where all or a part of the place of","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"use is on federal or state grazing lands,” the Director “shall","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"not issue an order to show cause” where the Director has or","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"timely receives “written evidence signed by the principal and","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"the agent . . . that a principal/agent relationship existed”","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"during the alleged five-year term of forfeiture “or currently","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 13","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"exists between the owner of the water right as principal and","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"a permittee or lessee as agent for the purpose of obtaining or","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"maintaining the water right.”","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"If the Director issues a show-cause order, the","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"rightsholder may request a hearing, after which the Director","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"“must issue an order regarding forfeiture.” Idaho Code § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"224(6), (8). At that point, the State of Idaho must initiate a","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"civil action in a state district court requesting a declaration","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"that the right has been forfeited, and the district court must","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"issue an order resolving the forfeiture dispute. Id. § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"224(10), (12). In the state court proceeding, the Director’s","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"“order determining forfeiture shall constitute prima facie","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"evidence that the right has been forfeited.” Id. § 42-224(11).","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"The district court concluded that § 42-224 is constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"as applied to the United States, and the United States appeals","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"that holding.","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"Through § 42-113(2)(b), the stockwater amendments","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"change the rules regarding appurtenance for stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"rights acquired under the constitutional method of","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"appropriation—but only if those rights are “associated with","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"grazing on federally owned or managed land.” The general","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"rule in Idaho is that water rights acquired under the","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"constitutional method (meaning, diverted for beneficial use)","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"are appurtenant to the land where the water “is being","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"applied.” Id. § 42-101; see also id. § 42-1402 (decreed rights","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"“shall become a part of the land on which the water is used”).","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"Section 42-113(2)(b) changes that general rule only for","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"stockwater rights “associated with grazing on federal[]” land","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"by providing: “For rights to the use of water for in-stream or","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"out-of-stream livestock purposes, associated with grazing on","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"federally owned or managed land, established under the","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"diversion and application to beneficial use method of","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"appropriation … [t]he water right shall be an appurtenance","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"14 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"to the base property.” And “[w]hen a federal grazing permit","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"is transferred or otherwise conveyed to a new owner, the","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"associated stockwater rights may also be conveyed and,","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"upon approval of an application for transfer, shall become","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"appurtenant to the new owner’s base property.” Id. § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"113(2)(b). The district court concluded that § 42-113(2)(b)","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"facially discriminates against the United States in violation","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"of the Supremacy Clause, and Defendants challenge that","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"holding in their cross-appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"Through § 42-502, the stockwater amendments restrict","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"the United States’ ability to acquire stockwater rights under","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"Idaho law. Section 42-501 provides: “No agency of the","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"federal government shall acquire a stockwater right unless","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"the agency owns livestock and puts the water to beneficial","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"use.” The district court concluded that § 42-502 facially","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"discriminates against the United States, and Defendants do","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"not appeal that ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"Through § 42-504, the stockwater amendments impose","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"restrictions on the use of stockwater rights that apply only to","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"the federal government and holders of federal grazing","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"permits. Section 42-504 provides:","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"If an agency of the federal government, or the","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"holder or holders of any livestock grazing","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"permit or lease on a federal grazing allotment,","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"acquires a stockwater right, that stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"right shall never be utilized for any purpose","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"other than the watering of livestock on the","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 15","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"federal grazing allotment that is the place of","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"use for that stockwater right.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"The district court concluded that § 42-504 facially","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"discriminates against the United States, and Defendants do","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"not appeal that ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"In sum, on appeal, it is undisputed that two of the","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"stockwater amendments, §§ 42-502 and 42-505, facially","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"discriminate against the United States in violation of the","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"Supremacy Clause. The parties dispute only whether § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"224 is unconstitutional as applied to the United States, and","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"whether § 42-113 is facially unconstitutional.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"II. JURISDICTION","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross-appeals","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On appeal, the State of Idaho argues","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the United","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"States’ challenge to § 42-224 under the doctrines of prior","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"exclusive jurisdiction and Burford abstention.2","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"2 The district court held that § 42-222(2) is constitutional. The United","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"States does not appeal that holding; indeed, it contends it “never brought","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"a stand-alone challenge to § 42-222(2),” but rather challenged § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"222(2) only “as applied together with the stockwater amendments.” Still,","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"the State of Idaho contends the district court erred by deciding the","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"validity of § 42-222(2); in its view, the United States could have","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"challenged the validity of § 42-222(2) during the SRBA and therefore","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"the present challenge is barred by claim preclusion. The State of Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"is incorrect. The United States is not “relitigating issues that were or","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"could have been raised” in the SRBA. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v.","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). Although § 42-222 was enacted before","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"the SRBA, the United States could not have brought its present challenge","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"during the SRBA because it contests § 42-222 only “as applied together","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"with the stockwater amendments,” which did not exist during the SRBA.","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"16 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"A. Prior Exclusive Jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction does not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Schoubroek, 145 F.4th 1058,","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"1069 (9th Cir. 2025).","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"Under the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction, “when","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"same res.” Id. at 1070 (citation omitted). The prior exclusive","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"jurisdiction doctrine is a “mandatory jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"limitation” that applies in the water rights context. State","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"Eng’r of State of Nev. v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"W. Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"2003).","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"This doctrine, however, applies only to actions that are","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"in rem. “An action is in rem when it determines interests in","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"specific property as against the whole world.” Goncalves By","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"& Through Goncalves v. Rady Child.’s Hosp. San Diego,","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"865 F.3d 1237, 1254 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted)","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"(cleaned up). We look “behind the form of the action to the","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"gravamen of a complaint and the nature of the right sued on”","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"to determine whether an action is in rem, considering","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"whether the relief requested would “interfere with the","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"jurisdiction or control by the state court over the res.”","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lara, 37 F.4th 579, 592–93","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"(9th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"This action is not in rem. The United States challenges","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"the constitutionality of the Idaho statutes. It does not assert","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"claims over new water rights or attempt to relitigate already-","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"decreed water rights, so it is not an action to “determine[]","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"interests in specific property as against the whole world.”","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"Goncalves, 865 F.3d at 1254 (citation omitted). Further, the","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 17","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"district court did not need to “assume in rem jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"over” any particular water rights to exercise jurisdiction in","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"this case. Gila River, 145 F.4th at 1070 (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"Thus, we agree with the district court that the prior exclusive","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"jurisdiction doctrine does not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"B. Burford Abstention","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"“We review de novo whether the requirements for","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"Burford abstention have been met,” and we review a district","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"court’s decision not to abstain for abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"Blumenkron v. Multnomah County, 91 F.4th 1303, 1312 (9th","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"Cir. 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"Burford abstention allows federal courts to “decline to","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"rule on an essentially local issue arising out of a complicated","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"state regulatory scheme.” United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"695, 705 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). But the doctrine","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"is an “extraordinary and narrow exception” to a court’s duty","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"“to adjudicate a controversy properly before it.”","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 728 (1996)","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"(citation omitted). It does not apply whenever a complex","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"state regulatory scheme is implicated or even when there is","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"“a ‘potential for conflict’ with state regulatory law or","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"policy.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 362 (1989) (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"There are three requirements for applying Burford","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"abstention:","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"[F]irst[,] that the state has chosen to","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"concentrate suits challenging the actions of","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"the agency involved in a particular court;","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"second, that federal issues could not be","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"separated easily from complex state law","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"issues with respect to which state courts","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"18 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"might have special competence; and third,","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"that federal review might disrupt state efforts","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"to establish a coherent policy.","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"City of Tucson v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc., 284 F.3d 1128,","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Morros, 268 F.3d at 705).","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"None are met here.","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"First, Idaho has chosen to concentrate suits challenging","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"the IDWR’s determination of water rights in its state courts,","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"but the United States does not challenge the IDWR’s actions.","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"It challenges the federal constitutionality of Idaho statutes.","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"Idaho has not concentrated—and cannot concentrate—suits","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"challenging the federal constitutionality of state statutes in","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"its courts.","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"Second, state courts have special competence in","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"resolving water right disputes under state law, but this case","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"does not require resolution of such disputes. Rather, it","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"requires us to determine whether state statutes are valid","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"under the U.S. Constitution, and Idaho state courts have no","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"special competence in evaluating such issues.","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"Third, federal review does not disrupt state efforts to","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"establish a coherent policy. We agree with the district court","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"that a state policy is not “coherent” if it is unconstitutional,","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"and “there is . . . no doctrine requiring abstention merely","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"because resolution of a federal question may result in the","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"overturning of a state policy.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"374, 379 n.5 (1978).","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"Because the requirements for Burford abstention are not","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"met, the district court did not have discretion to abstain.","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 19","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"III. THE UNITED STATES’ APPEAL","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"“We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.”","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2025).","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"The United States contends that § 42-224 is","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"unconstitutional as applied to federal stockwater rights on","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"federal grazing lands under the Supremacy Clause because","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"it is part of a statutory scheme designed to effectively divest","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"the United States of its SRBA-decreed stockwater rights.","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"The State Defendants respond that § 42-224 merely creates","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"a procedure for enforcing existing forfeiture standards. To","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"understand the parties’ arguments and our resolution of this","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"issue, it helps to understand the parties’ conflicting views","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"about the basis for the United States’ SRBA-decreed","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"stockwater rights. After we provide that background, we","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"address the constitutionality of § 42-224.","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"A. The United States’ SRBA-Decreed Stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"Rights","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"The United States contends that it acquired its SRBA-","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"decreed stockwater rights through grazing permittees who","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"acted as agents of the United States for the purposes of","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"acquiring water rights when they watered their livestock on","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"federal land.","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"The State of Idaho contends that the United States lacked","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"any agency relationship with its permittees—and that the","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"sole basis for the United States’ SRBA-decreed stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"rights was the United States’ ownership and management of","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"federal grazing lands—while noting that, under Joyce, mere","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"ownership of land is not a valid basis for acquiring","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"stockwater rights under the constitutional method.","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"It is undisputed that the United States had no express","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"agency agreements with its permittees. But the United States","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"20 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"contends it had implied agency relationships with permittees","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"“who initiate[d] water use under federal permits and/or in","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"connection with federally approved or funded","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"improvements.”","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"The State of Idaho contends that, under Joyce, an agency","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"relationship cannot be implied based solely on a federal","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"grazing permit. But Joyce did not address whether or when","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"an implied agency relationship is established between the","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"United States and its permittees under the permitting","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"program. See supra Section I.B. The Idaho Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"held that Joyce’s predecessor acquired stockwater rights on","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"its own behalf when it first watered livestock on the public","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"domain before the Taylor Grazing Act established the","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"federal permitting program, and that the predecessor and its","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"successors retained their pre-existing water rights when they","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"became federal permittees. Joyce Livestock Co., 156 P.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"509–21. That does not mean, however, that a permittee","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"cannot act as the United States’ agent when it has no pre-","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"existing private water rights and first uses water on federal","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"land as a permittee. See id. Defendants do not cite any","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"authority holding that an implied agency relationship is not","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"established under such circumstances, and we have found","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"none.","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"The State Defendants cite McInturff v. Shippy, 447 P.3d","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"937 (Idaho 2019), but that case is inapposite. In McInturff,","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"tenants obtained a water-right license to irrigate crops the","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"tenants were growing on the landowner’s property, and the","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"license listed the tenants as the owners of the water right. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"at 942–43. Over thirty years later, the landowner’s successor","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"claimed that it owned the licensed water right, not the","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"tenants’ successor. Id. at 943–44. The Idaho Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"rejected the successor landowner’s claim for multiple","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"reasons. Id. at 943–46. Relevant here, the court concluded","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 21","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"that there was no evidence that the landowner had an agency","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"relationship with the tenant, in part because the landowner","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"contended that no lease with the tenant ever existed. Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"946. In that context, the court explained that “[m]erely","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"allowing the tenant to use the water on land owned by the","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"landlord . . . [wa]s not enough to establish an agency","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"relationship between landowner and tenant.” Id. But here,","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"the United States does not merely rely on the fact that it","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"allows permittees to use water on federal land; rather, it","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"contends that an implied agency relationship exists for the","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"purpose of acquiring water rights when it issues a grazing","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"permit under the terms and conditions of the federal grazing","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"program and the permittee has no pre-existing private","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"stockwater right.","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"The State of Idaho also argues that, because neither the","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"SRBA’s partial decrees nor the Final Unified Decree","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"expressly state that the United States acquired its rights","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"through permittees acting as its agents, we cannot infer that","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"was the basis for the SRBA-decreed rights. The State,","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"however, cites no authority holding that the basis of a","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"decreed stockwater right cannot be implied where, as here,","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"the decree does not expressly state otherwise. The State of","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"Idaho cites only United States v. Black Canyon Irrigation","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"Dist., 408 P.3d 52 (Idaho 2017). But in that case, the decrees","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"at issue expressly granted rights for “specific, measurable","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"quantities of water,” and the United States later filed claims","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"asserting storage water rights based on the amount of water","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"needed to complete “one physical fill of its reservoirs.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"at 55–56, 61. The court rejected those late claims because","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"“[t]he quantities set forth in the decrees are binding and must","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"control.” Id. at 61. Unlike in Black Canyon, there is no","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"conflict between the United States’ position and the SRBA","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"decrees’ express terms.","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"22 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"B. Section 42-224 Is Unconstitutional as Applied to","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"the United States","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"The Supremacy Clause “generally immunizes the","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"Federal Government from state laws that [1] directly","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"regulate or [2] discriminate against it.” Nwauzor v. GEO","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"Grp., Inc., 127 F.4th 750, 759 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"omitted) (alterations in original). A state law unlawfully","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"discriminates against the federal government by singling it","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"out “for less favorable treatment” or regulating it","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"“unfavorably on some basis related to [its] governmental","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"status.” United States v. Washington, 596 U.S. 832, 839","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"(2022) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The United","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"States contends that § 42-224 singles the federal government","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"out for less favorable treatment because it was enacted for","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"the purpose of divesting the United States of its SRBA-","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"decreed stockwater rights and effectively facilitates such","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"divestments.","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"As explained, § 42-224 establishes a new procedure for","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"determining whether a holder of stockwater rights has","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"forfeited those rights. See supra pp. 12–13. To recap: Under","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"§ 42-224, if the Director of the Idaho Department of Water","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"Resources receives a petition and determines there is prima","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"facie evidence that a stockwater right has not been put to","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"beneficial use for a term of five (5) years, the Director must","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"issue a show-cause order. Idaho Code § 42-224(1)–(2). The","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"rightsholder may then request a hearing, after which the","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"Director must issue an order regarding forfeiture. Id. § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"224(6), (8). Then, the State of Idaho must initiate a civil","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"action in state district court requesting a declaration","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"regarding the forfeiture, and the district court must issue an","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"order resolving the dispute. Id. § 42-224(10)–(12). If,","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"however, the show-cause order will affect stockwater rights","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"on federal or state grazing lands, the Director must mail a","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 23","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"copy of the order to the rightsholders before officially","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"issuing it. Id. § 42-224(4). If the Director receives written","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"evidence, signed by both principal and agent, showing an","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"agency relationship existed between the owner of the water","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"right and a permittee for the purpose of obtaining or","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"maintaining the water right during the relevant time period,","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"then the Director shall not issue the show-cause order. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"Section 42-224’s provisions—except for subsection 42-","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"224(4)—appear facially neutral, applying to all holders of","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"state-law stockwater rights. However, we must construe","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"§ 42-224 in its statutory context, particularly the other","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"stockwater amendments. Section 42-501 expressly states the","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"legislative purpose of the stockwater amendments and","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"declares:","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"In the landmark case of Joyce Livestock","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"Company v. United States of America, 144","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"Idaho 1, 156 P.3d 502 (2007), the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"Supreme Court held that an agency of the","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"federal government cannot obtain a","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"stockwater right under Idaho law unless it","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"actually owns livestock and puts the water to","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"beneficial use.","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"This legislative statement misconstrues Joyce: the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"Supreme Court did not actually hold that the federal","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"government can acquire stockwater rights only by owning","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"livestock. See Joyce Livestock Co., 156 P.3d at 509–21; see","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"also supra Section I.B. But the statement accurately reflects","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"the State Defendants’ view that the United States’ SRBA-","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"decreed rights lack a valid basis because the United States","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"did not actually own livestock. See supra Section III.A. And","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"consistent with § 42-501, Idaho provides in § 42-502 that","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"24 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"“[n]o agency of the federal government shall acquire a","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"stockwater right unless the agency owns livestock and puts","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"the water to beneficial use.”","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"Section 42-501 also declares: “It is the intent of the","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"Legislature . . . to protect Idaho stockwater right holders","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"from encroachment by the federal government” and to","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"ensure that “stockwater rights acquired in a manner contrary","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"to the Joyce decision are subject to forfeiture pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"sections 42-222(2) and 42-224.” As explained, the State","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"Defendants maintain that the United States acquired its","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"SRBA-decreed stockwater rights in a manner contrary to","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"Joyce. See supra Section III.A. Thus, the express legislative","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"purpose of the stockwater amendments is to subject the","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"United States’ rights to forfeiture under § 42-224.","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"Section 42-501 also states: “A rancher is not unwittingly","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"acting as an agent of a federal agency simply by grazing","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"livestock on federally managed lands when he files for and","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"receives a stockwater right.” When Idaho first enacted § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"502 in 2017, it provided, consistent with § 42-501: “For the","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"purposes of this chapter, a permittee on a federally","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"administered grazing allotment shall not be considered an","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"agent of the federal government.” Idaho Code § 42-502(2)","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"(2017). When Idaho amended § 42-502 in 2020, it removed","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"this subsection but preserved the related statement of","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"legislative purpose in § 42-501. See 2020 Idaho Sess. Laws","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"Ch. 253, § 3; Idaho Code § 42-502 (2020).","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"Two other stockwater amendments, §§ 42-502 and 42-","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"504, facially discriminate against the United States by","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"placing restrictions on the ability to acquire and use","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"stockwater rights that apply only to the federal government","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"or federal grazing permittees. See supra pp. 14–15.","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 25","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"Reading the stockwater amendments as a whole, we","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"agree with the United States that § 42-224 is part of a","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"statutory scheme that is designed to divest the United States","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"of its SRBA-decreed water rights. Section 42-224 effectively","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"jeopardizes the United States’ SRBA-decreed stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"rights because the United States has historically acquired and","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"retained those rights not by actually owning livestock but","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"rather through its permittees’ beneficial use, and it does not","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"have express agency agreements with permittees that","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"comply with § 42-224(4).","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"The State Defendants argue that § 42-224 merely","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"provides a process for enforcing longstanding forfeiture","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"standards and does not preclude the United States from","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"prevailing in a forfeiture proceeding when it lacks an express","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"agency agreement that complies with § 42-224(4). This","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"argument rings hollow given that the stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"amendments expressly reflect the State’s position that,","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"without such agreements, permittees cannot be considered","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"agents of the United States. But even if § 42-224(4) does not","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"require the United States to obtain express agency","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"agreements to avoid forfeiture of its SRBA-decreed","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"stockwater rights, § 42-224 at least forces the United States","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"to defend against burdensome collateral attacks against those","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"rights—as shown by the record of § 42-224 petitions and","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"orders to show cause issued against the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"Because Idaho Code § 42-224 discriminates against the","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"United States in violation of the Supremacy Clause, we","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"reverse the denial of the United States’ motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"judgment with respect to its as-applied challenge to § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"224.3","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"3 We do not reach the United States’ alternative challenges to § 42-224.","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"26 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"IV. DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-APPEAL","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"Defendants appeal the district court’s conclusion that","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"§ 42-113(2)(b) is facially unconstitutional under the","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"Supremacy Clause. We affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"Recall that § 42-113(2)(b) changes the appurtenance","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"rules for stockwater rights acquired under the state-law","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"constitutional method (that is, diverted for beneficial use)—","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"but only if those rights are “associated with grazing on","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"federally owned or managed land.” See supra pp. 13–14.","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"Generally, in Idaho, water rights diverted for beneficial use","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"are appurtenant to the land where the water “is being","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"applied,” meaning the land where the water rights are used.","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"Idaho Code § 42-1401. But under § 42-113(2)(b), if such","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"water rights are associated with grazing on federally owned","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"or managed land, they are appurtenant to the “base","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"property”—the property where a federal grazing permittee’s","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"livestock herd is housed. Section 42-113(2)(b) further","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"provides that, when a federal grazing permit is transferred or","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"conveyed to a new owner, the associated stockwater rights","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"may also be conveyed and become appurtenant to the new","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"permit owner’s base property.","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"The statute has the effect of divesting the United States","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"of its stockwater rights established under the state-law","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"constitutional method: Under the general rule, those","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"stockwater rights would be appurtenant to the federal land","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"where the water is being used, but under § 42-113(2)(b),","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"those stockwater rights are appurtenant to the federal grazing","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"permittee’s private property where their livestock is housed.","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"Those stockwater rights, moreover, can be conveyed to a","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"new permittee, in which case, the rights become appurtenant","paragraph_id":"para_805"},{"text":"to the new permittee’s private property.","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"USA V. STATE OF IDAHO 27","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"The State Defendants argue that § 42-113(2)(b) merely","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"codifies Joyce, but they are incorrect. In Joyce, the Idaho","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"Supreme Court held that the stockwater rights acquired by","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"Joyce’s predecessors were appurtenant to the land on which","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"their deeded ranches were located (not the federal grazing","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"land where the water was used), and that water rights","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"appurtenant to land pass with the land when it is conveyed.","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"156 P.3d at 513–15. Section 42-113(2)(b) does not merely","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"codify those holdings. Joyce addressed only stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"rights associated with federal land that were privately held","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"by ranchers, but § 42-113(2)(b) applies to all stockwater","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"rights associated with federal land—including the rights held","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"by the United States. Further, Joyce addressed the effect of","paragraph_id":"para_820"},{"text":"a transfer of land on a water right that is appurtenant to the","paragraph_id":"para_821"},{"text":"land, but § 42-113(2)(b) addresses the effect of a transfer of","paragraph_id":"para_822"},{"text":"“a federal grazing permit” on a water right “associated” with","paragraph_id":"para_823"},{"text":"the federal permit. Moreover, under § 42-113(2)(b), when a","paragraph_id":"para_824"},{"text":"federal grazing permit is transferred to a new owner, the","paragraph_id":"para_825"},{"text":"existing permittee may convey the associated water rights to","paragraph_id":"para_826"},{"text":"the new owner—even if the United States, not the permittee,","paragraph_id":"para_827"},{"text":"owns those water rights.","paragraph_id":"para_828"},{"text":"Because § 42-113(2)(b) regulates only stockwater rights","paragraph_id":"para_829"},{"text":"associated with land owned by the United States and creates","paragraph_id":"para_830"},{"text":"a mechanism by which permittees can divest the United","paragraph_id":"para_831"},{"text":"States of its stockwater rights, § 42-113(2)(b) unlawfully","paragraph_id":"para_832"},{"text":"discriminates against the United States. Therefore, § 42-","paragraph_id":"para_833"},{"text":"113(2)(b) violates the Supremacy Clause, and is facially","paragraph_id":"para_834"},{"text":"invalid.","paragraph_id":"para_835"},{"text":"V. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_836"},{"text":"The district court had jurisdiction to hear the United","paragraph_id":"para_837"},{"text":"States’ claims. We reverse the denial of the United States’","paragraph_id":"para_838"},{"text":"motion for summary judgment with respect to its as-applied","paragraph_id":"para_839"},{"text":"28 USA V. STATE OF IDAHO","paragraph_id":"para_840"},{"text":"challenge to § 42-224, and we affirm the grant of the United","paragraph_id":"para_841"},{"text":"States’ motion for summary judgment with respect to its","paragraph_id":"para_842"},{"text":"facial challenge to § 42-113(2)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_843"},{"text":"AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.","paragraph_id":"para_844"},{"text":"We award costs to Appellant, the United States of","paragraph_id":"para_845"},{"text":"America. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a).","paragraph_id":"para_846"}],"word_count":6547,"cites":["529 U.S. 728","452 U.S. 394","517 U.S. 706","491 U.S. 350","434 U.S.\n374","596 U.S. 832","145 F.4th 1058","339 F.3d 804","865 F.3d 1237","37 F.4th 579","91 F.4th 1303","268 F.3d\n695","284 F.3d 1128","140 F.4th 1237","127 F.4th 750"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"4a8141f57a32463a619a94db9ff358c3e4246699abf4d3c6ab6cfdf6f8954b85","source_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/18/25-947.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T15:28:25.169+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","verification":{"stored_sha256":"4a8141f57a32463a619a94db9ff358c3e4246699abf4d3c6ab6cfdf6f8954b85","recomputed_sha256":"4a8141f57a32463a619a94db9ff358c3e4246699abf4d3c6ab6cfdf6f8954b85","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-17T23:39:30.405Z"}},"hash":"sha256:4e381c2aafc6fea4fb5591069fada55b29f130e5fcfb5382dfe66adb5e8b01f5","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:4e381c2aafc6fea4fb5591069fada55b29f130e5fcfb5382dfe66adb5e8b01f5","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T00:39:30.575Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-25-947-2026-09-18"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca9-25-947-2026-09-18","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-4c3aee91e8a9a7f352755cac8334ca61","response_hash":"sha256:4e381c2aafc6fea4fb5591069fada55b29f130e5fcfb5382dfe66adb5e8b01f5"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:42:08.916Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca9-25-947-2026-09-18&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":31531}}