Every year before the Supreme Court’s term officially begins on the first Monday in October, the Court holds its “long” conference where it considers whether to hear about 2,000 cases. On October 1, the Court accepted eight of those cases, two affecting cities and counties.

Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States

In Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States the Court will decide who owns an abandoned railroad right-of-way:  the United States or a private land owner living next to the right-of-way.  In 1875 Congress passed a law granting rights-of-way to railroads through public land. Over the course of the next century, as trucking became a more popular method of transport, numerous railroads abandoned these rights-of-law.  The United States argues that a 1922 federal statute allows the United States to retain the railroad right-of-way if it is abandoned. If that is the case and the abandoned right-of-way is located in a city, the city automatically receives it from the federal government for free. If the abandoned right-of-way is located elsewhere, a state or local government receives it for free if it establishes a “public highway” on the right-of-way within one year.  State and local governments typically convert abandoned railroad rights-of-way into “Rails-to-Trails.” 

Local governments often own and maintain abandoned railroad rights-of-way. In fact, the Supreme Court usually accepts cases where at least two federal circuit courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same issue. In Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the United States. In a similar case, Samuel C. Johnson 1988 Trust v. Bayfield County, Wisconsin, the Seventh Circuit ruled against Bayfield County, which intended to build snowmobile trails on the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

Navarette v. California

Mendocino County’s 911 call center received a tip that a vehicle had driven the caller off the road. The caller gave a description of the make, model, and license plate number of the vehicle along with the road and mile marker the vehicle was on and the direction it was headed. Two state police officers quickly located the vehicle based on the description, pulled the driver over, and searched the car after smelling marijuana. The officers discovered four large bags of marijuana. The question the Court will decide in Navarette v. California is whether the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle. In this case, the police officers did not actually observe any erratic driving before pulling the vehicle over. The California Court of Appeals held that officers need not wait to pull someone over when an anonymous tip is of erratic driving and the officer is able to corroborate details, as in this case.

Local government police officers frequently are faced with this situation. Waiting to pull over someone until the officer actually witnesses reckless driving may put other drivers, and the officer himself or herself, in harm's way.    

The Court is still likely to pick about 30 more cases to decide during its October 2013 term.  Some of these cases will impact cities and counties. 

Learn more about cases from this term affecting local government at the State and Local Legal Center’s website.