U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 51— ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

16 U.S.C. § 3213

Future executive branch actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No future executive branch action which withdraws more than five thousand acres, in the aggregate, of public lands within the State of Alaska shall be effective except by compliance with this subsection. To the extent authorized by existing law, the President or the Secretary may withdraw public lands in the State of Alaska exceeding five thousand acres in the aggregate, which withdrawal shall not become effective until notice is provided in the Federal Register and to both Houses of Congress. Such withdrawal shall terminate unless Congress passes a joint resolution of approval within one year after the notice of such withdrawal has been submitted to Congress.(b) No further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by this Act or further Act of Congress.(Pub. L. 96–487, title XIII, § 1326, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2488.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Se. Conf. v. Vilsack, 684 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Se. Conf. v. Vilsack, 684 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 6× “And because this land is closed to the timber harvest, plaintiffs posit that the “old growth reserves” designation “withdraws” land within the meaning of 16 U.S.C. § 3213 (a). Hence, in plaintiffs’ view, the “old growth reserves” designation can be upheld only if the Forest…”
Garfield Cnty., Utah v. Trump (10th Cir. 2026). · cites it 4× “, 16 U.S.C. § 3213; 43 U.S.C. § 156 (1964).”
Se. Conf. v. Schaefer (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 4× “According to plaintiffs, the "old growth reserves" designation has the effect of closing the designated land to the timber harvest. See Pls.' Mem.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.