Heck, even the single sentence that I just wrote takes a lot to get through.
But it's pro-logging advocates on one side against anti-logging advocates on another. It's also a split opinion in the Ninth Circuit, with Judge McKeown writing the majority opinion -- coming out in favor of the the pro-Proclamation and anti-logging side -- with Judge Tallman dissenting (on the other side).
But even if you don't read the entire thing, here were my two favorite parts of the respective opinions:
(1) In the dissent, some fancy, highfautin language from Judge Tallman: "Proclamations and executive orders of this reach are
often responsive to criticisms by advocates that Congress is
too formalistic and inflexible in performing its legislative
function as originally envisioned by the Framers in today’s
dynamic world. The legislative process can sometimes be
slow and frustrating, but the procedural strictures enshrined
in our Constitution are unyielding because they exist to
maintain our Republic’s status as a government of laws and
not of men."
(2) In the majority opinion, the sly little joke from Judge McKeown: "Admittedly, the validity of
the Proclamation—an Antiquities Act order that implicates
the O&C Act—presents a statutory thicket. But, ultimately,
Murphy’s claim of irreconcilability misses the forest for the
trees."
Ho ho ho. I get it.
