Public Land & Resources Law Review

Dedicated to Law, Policy, and Scholarship since 1980

One of the nation's oldest law reviews focused on public lands, natural resources, and Indian law, the Public Land & Resources Law Review is student-edited and based at the University of Montana's Alexander Blewett III School of Law.

Our publications, online journal, and signature events — including the biennial Public Land Law Conference and Jestrab Lecture on Water — connect students, scholars, and practitioners around the legal issues shaping the American West and beyond.

Current Issue

Volume 48, Issue 2 (2025)View issue

Featured Content

  • Comment
    16 April 2026

    Alaska Dep’t of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Bd.

    MJ Fiedler
    A subsistence hunt in Kake, Alaska, during the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a lawsuit from the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game challenging the authority of the Federal Subsistence Board to open the hunt. This lawsuit is a recent addition to a long history of the State of Alaska’s resistance to federal enforcement of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provision establishing priority for rural subsistence users. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the Federal Subsistence Board’s authority to open the subsistence hunt.
    Read More
  • Case Summary
    10 February 2026

    WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv. Wildlife Services

    Luke Zagar
    WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv. Wildlife Services considers whether Predator Damage Management (“PDM”) programs in Wilderness Areas violate the Wilderness Act and whether the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (“Wildlife Services”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) in issuing its Final Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding in Forest Guardians v. Naimal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., finding that “the Wilderness Act does not prohibit Wildlife Service from conducting [PDM] operations in Wilderness Areas.” On the NEPA claim, the Court determined that Wildlife Services’ issuance of the EA and the FONSI violated NEPA by failing to satisfy the “hard look” requirement. The Court agreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wildlife Services on the Wilderness Act claim but disagreed with its grant of summary judgment in favor of Wildlife Services on the NEPA claim. The Court’s decision both maintained continuity in its interpretation of the Wilderness Act as applied to PDM and distinguished the analytical requirements applicable to agency environmental assessments under NEPA.
    Read More

Current Articles