Residents living on ranches and dairies in the Point Reyes National Seashore are suing the National Park Service in a bid to stop a legal settlement they say would unlawfully force their eviction. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Andrew Giacomini in federal court last Thursday, comes on the heels of the residents’ recent motion to intervene in a related suit over the future of ranching on the peninsula.
The Hail Mary maneuver may represent the last opportunity the 34 Latino agricultural workers and their families have to influence the terms of any agreement emerging from the lawsuit, Resource Renewal Institute v. National Park Service.
That suit challenges the park service’s decision to keep 21 historic ranches and dairies in operation. For nearly three years, the park has been in settlement talks with the ranchers and the three environmental groups that brought the suit. Mr. Giacomini said rumors are swirling that a settlement could be finalized before he has a chance to argue their motion on Jan. 10.
The residents’ motion to intervene has faced fierce opposition from both the environmental groups and the park service, who appear intent on locking in an agreement before the Trump administration takes office.
“My belief is that before that hearing ever happens, they’re going to settle,” Mr. Giacomini said. “We realized we needed to buy some time and protect our clients’ interests by filing a separate lawsuit directly against the National Park Service.”
The residents are seeking an injunction to halt a settlement that would compel them to leave jobs and homes that many have had for decades. The pending deal reportedly involves the Nature Conservancy purchasing ranchers’ leases and requiring all residents to vacate their homes within six to 12 months.
Among other remedies, the residents are asking for guarantees of due process before eviction and “the same opportunities, benefits, and a comparable level of non-monetary compensation…for housing” that the ranchers would receive under the settlement.
In their 27-page complaint, the residents accuse the park service of violating the Fifth Amendment, the Fair Housing Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. They argue that by crafting the agreement behind closed doors, without public scrutiny or input, the park service has denied them due process and transparency required by law.
“The National Park Service’s decision to proceed in secret causes the Agricultural Workers’ liberty and property interests to be invaded by the government without an opportunity to challenge that invasion and prevent their eviction,” the complaint states.
A spokeswoman for the park declined to comment on the case, and representatives from the environmental groups did not respond or declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of the ongoing mediation.
Central to the new lawsuit is the assertion that the park service’s approach contravenes longstanding constitutional protections—specifically, the residents’ Fifth Amendment rights, which ensure that no individual be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that establishing and maintaining a home constitutes a protected liberty interest under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Evicting residents without proper legal safeguards—such as notice, a fair hearing and a genuine opportunity to contest their removal—violates these fundamental rights, the lawsuit claims.
Due process in this scenario also includes lifting the current gag order, publicly disclosing proposed settlement terms, providing a public comment period, preparing a revised environmental impact statement and issuing a new decision before finalizing any settlement, according to the suit.
The residents further contend that the park service’s actions violate the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which forbids discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability. While the pending settlement reportedly provides financial compensation for ranchers, it allegedly offers no equivalent support to the Latino agricultural workers.
“The National Park Service’s decision to treat similarly situated lessees differently causes a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on a protected group of individuals,” wrote Mr. Giacomini and his team from the firm Hanson Bridgett.
The plaintiffs also invoke NEPA, which requires federal agencies to engage in informed, transparent decision-making before taking major actions that significantly affect the environment. Evicting longtime residents from the ranches, they argue, constitutes such an action and therefore necessitates public disclosure, analysis and a revised environmental impact statement.
The attorneys argue that the environmental impact statement associated with the park’s plan to continue ranching failed to adequately consider the social and environmental consequences of ending ranching and displacing workers. “NEPA does not sanction the secret process the NPS is utilizing,” the complaint asserts. The park service “cannot under the guise of settlement arrive at a decision in the absence of NEPA review and that circumvents its consideration of public input.”
The legal battle over the future of ranching at Point Reyes dates to a 2016 lawsuit by the same environmental groups. The ensuing settlement required the park service to revise its 1980 general management plan and conduct an environmental review of ranching and dairying. Following that process, the park announced a plan in 2021 that allowed the ranches and dairies to continue, while introducing a new zoning scheme. Unsatisfied, the environmentalists sued in 2022 to challenge that plan.
Lawsuits are normally randomly assigned to a federal judge, but the new case could bypass that process and go directly to U.S. District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney, the judge presiding over Resource Renewal Institute v. National Park Service. Judge Chesney would then consider accepting the case under a so-called related-case rule.