The Rails to Trails Conservancy reports that the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 10 ruling on a dispute over access to a rail corridor formerly on federal land that is now privately owned is more narrow than initially feared by recreation advocates.



After examining the Court’s decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States, it is clear that its reach is much narrower than has been reported in the press, according to Kevin Mills, TRC’s senior vice president of policy and trail development.


 

In a blog post at railstotrail.org, Mills writes that the vast majority of current and planned rail-trails will not be affected.

“The ruling does not affect trails that have been “railbanked” (the federal process of preserving former railway corridors for potential future railway service by converting them to multi-use trails in the interim),” writes Mills. “Potentially affected corridors are predominantly west of the Mississippi and were originally acquired by railroads after 1875 through federal land to aid in westward expansion.”

Existing rail-trails or trail projects are not affected by the decision if any of the following conditions are met:

 


  • The rail corridor is “railbanked.” 

  • The rail corridor was originally acquired by the railroad by a federally granted right-of-way (FGROW) through federal lands before 1875.

  • The railroad originally acquired the corridor from a private land owner. 

  • The trail manager owns the land adjacent to the rail corridor. 

  • The trail manager owns full title (fee simple) to the corridor. 

  • The railroad corridor falls within the original 13 colonies.

Those with questions about a specific rail-to-trail project are welcome to contact the manager of that trail, or contact RTC at railtrails@railstotrails.org.



“Despite the decision, the rail-trail movement remains strong,” Mills wrote. “But the ruling will likely invite more litigation directed at rail-trails that consist of or include federally granted rights of way.”

 

As this case moves back to the lower courts, RTC is exploring opportunities to ensure the scope of the ruling is as narrow as possible.