Tanacross, Inc. v. Babbitt

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990). Taken in the light most favorable to Tanacross, we must determine whether “there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 873 F.2d 1338, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1989).“An administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering is accorded substantial deference.” Seldovia Native Ass’n, Inc. v. Lujan, 904 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir. 1990). The agency’s interpretation is upheld if it is “reasonable and is not contrary to congressional intent.” Id.Tanacross concedes that a withdrawal remains in effect until it is formally revoked, United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., Ltd., 455 F.2d 432, 445-46 (9th Cir. 1971); Buch v. Morton, 449 F.2d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 1971), and that the withdrawal for the Department of the Army was never formally revoked. Tanacross distinguishes these cases by suggesting that the terminal had been “transferred to the GSA for disposal,” so “the withdrawal was not held by any military service and the national defense purposes exception no longer applied.” In whatever sense the land was transferred to GSA, the Army continued to hold the property despite filing the notice of intent to relinquish it. This fact is critical. Sitnasuak Native Corp., 91 I.B.L.A. 86, 91 (1986). Under both BLM and GSA regulations, the Army still held the property. 43 CFR 2374.1(c); 41 CFR 101-47.201-3(b); 41 CFR 101-47.103-7. Though GSA had authority to sell or otherwise dispose of the property, the property was not held by GSA nor was the withdrawal revoked. See Alaska Pipeline, 38 I.B.L.A. 1, 17 (1978).

‍

Adds precedent that influences how ANCSA corporations, regulators, and shareholders interpret governance rights and remedies.