Maybe a few things will become more clear with the current Brief in Reinhart 16-970.
The preemptive scope of those statutes is not at issue here—and the preemptive effect of federal statutes governing other activities, such as “oil drilling” and “livestock grazing” (Pet. 31), is even further afield. This case presents only the question whether the Mining Act preempts a state moratorium on suction dredging. Even if that narrow question otherwise warranted this Court’s review, this case would not be an appropriate vehicle in which to consider it. Petitioner was convicted of two misdemeanors for conduct that occurred in June 2012. Pet. App. C2. The validity of those convictions turns on whether federal law preempted the California moratorium as it existed at that time. But California has now amended the moratorium, and the State is in the process of developing new regulations that may lift it altogether. The validity of California law as it stood five years ago is not a question of continuing importance.7
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
What was learned here.
What is the point here in layman's terms?
