Friends weigh in with California Supreme Court
"amicus" letters support request for review
(warning recommended reading below)
Three "amicus" letters were submitted to the California Supreme Court this past week, asking it to review the ruling by the 5th District Appellate Court that San Francisco need not comply fully with California law.
The letters are excellent and worth reading. We are grateful both to the parties supporting review and to the attorneys who drafted the letters.
The amici submitting these letters are:
Former California Officials (prepared by Attorney Roger Moore), including
- Attorney General B. Daniel Lungren,
- Secretary of Resources Douglas Wheeler,
- Secretary of Resources Huey Johnson, and
- Senator Lois Wolk
Former Yosemite Superintendents (prepared by Attorney Deborah Caplan), including
- Barbara "B.J." Griffin,
- Robert Binnewies, and
- David Mihalic
Environmental groups, including
- California Coastkeeper Alliance,
- California Wilderness Coalition,
- California Water Impact Network,
- Californians for Western Wilderness,
- Mono Lake Committee,
- The Bay Institute,
- Foothill Conservancy,
- Friends of the River,
- Friends of the Eel River,
- Friends of the Inyo, and
- The Natural Heritage Institute.
The letters are very different, but all emphasize the importance of both Yosemite and the equal application of California law. Naturally, the letters universally explain that the will of Congress, expressed in the plain language of the Raker Act as well as in its legislative history, was virtually ignored by the appellate court.
There is no summary of these letters here. Please take a few minutes to read them. They aren't that complicated (just skip over any confusing legal citations).
The judges and clerks must read letters these carefully as well, in addition of course to our brief - prepared by attorneys Michael Lozeau and Richard Frank. We recognize the Supreme Court receives many requests, and reviews relatively few of them. Our case, however, involves not only the future of Yosemite National Park but also the fundamental intersection between federal and State law, and warrants careful scrutiny by California's highest court.