Wilkie v. Robbins
Robbins sued various employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Robbins alleged that the defendants attempted to extort a right-of-way across Robbins' property in violation of RICO and the Fifth Amendment. Robbins owns a cattle and guest ranch in Wyoming where he engages in cattle ranching and operates a commercial guest ranch. The previous owner had granted to BLM an access easement along a road on the ranch. BLM failed to record the easement, however, and Robbins had no notice of it when he purchased and recorded his interest in the ranch. Thus, under Wyoming's recording statute, Robbins took ownership of the ranch unencumbered by the easement. Robbins also had various BLM preference rights, livestock grazing permits, and a special-recreation use permit allowing him to use federal lands adjacent to his property.
When BLM learned its easement had been extinguished, it contacted Robbins to discuss obtaining a right-of-way across the ranch. Robbins refused. Robbins alleges that in retaliation for his refusal to grant the right-of-way, the defendants attempted to extort the right-of-way from him by refusing to maintain the road providing access to his property; threatening to cancel, and then canceling, his right-of-way across federal lands; stating they would "bury Frank Robbins"; canceling his special recreation use permit and grazing privileges; bringing unfounded criminal charges against him; trespassing on his property; and interfering with his guest cattle drives.
In the district court, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the right to be free from retaliation for the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights is clearly established, and the defendants' alleged wrongful use of otherwise lawful authority to obtain a right-of-way from Robbins violates clearly established law under the Hobbs Act and Wyoming law.
Questions Presented:
This case involves a damages action brought against officials of the Bureau of Land Management in their individual capacities based on alleged actions taken within the individuals’ official regulatory responsibilities in attempting to obtain a reciprocal right-of-way across private property intermingled with public lands.
The following questions are presented:
1. Whether government officials acting pursuant to their regulatory authority can be guilty under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. sec. 1961 et seq., of the predicate act of extortion under color of official right for attempting to obtain property for the sole benefit of the government and, if so, whether that statutory prohibition was clearly established.
2. Whether respondent’s Bivens claim based on the exercise of his alleged Fifth Amendment rights is precluded by the availability of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 701 et seq., or other statutes for the kind of administrative actions on which his claim is based.
3. Whether the Fifth Amendment protects against retaliation for exercising a “right to exclude” the government from one’s property outside the eminent domain process and, if so, whether that Fifth Amendment right was clearly established.
