8th Circuit reverses: Army Corps of Engineers could not revoke a man's boat dock permit…
Jackie Lackie v. Eric Noe
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit reverses: Army Corps of Engineers could not revoke a man's boat dock permit after signing a settlement that resolved 'all known disputes' over trees cut on federal land.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling and found that the Army Corps of Engineers acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it revoked Jackie Lackie's shoreline use permit after signing a settlement agreement that purported to settle 'all known disputes' between the parties. Lackie had paid over $6,000 to resolve allegations that he cut down trees on federal land near Greers Ferry Lake in Arkansas, and the settlement document explicitly stated it resolved all known disputes. The Corps then revoked his boat dock permit the following month, which the appeals court found was inconsistent with the terms of that agreement.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects property owners who hold shoreline use permits on federal reservoirs managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, and it has implications for how the Corps and similar federal agencies can act after entering into written settlement agreements with private individuals.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Published opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Published opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The central question in this case was whether the Army Corps of Engineers breached a signed settlement agreement when it revoked Jackie Lackie's shoreline use permit shortly after he paid a negotiated sum to resolve a tree-cutting dispute on federal land near Greers Ferry Lake in Arkansas. In January 2022, Corps park rangers found that 69 trees had been cut down on government land adjacent to Lackie's property. The Corps inferred Lackie was responsible and sent him a letter offering to settle the regulatory violation if he paid $6,017.28. That same letter warned that the Corps was recommending revocation of his shoreline use permit for his boat dock. Enclosed was a memorandum of agreement stating that signing it would settle 'all known disputes' between the Corps and Lackie as of the date signed. Lackie signed, paid the money, and later that month the Corps revoked his permit anyway. Lackie sued in federal district court, arguing the revocation was arbitrary and capricious because it contradicted the settlement agreement. The district court sided with the Corps and upheld the revocation. Lackie appealed to the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reversed that decision. The court found that the Corps's revocation of the permit was inconsistent with the settlement agreement's plain terms, which stated the agreement settled all known disputes between the parties. Because the source text of this excerpt ends before the court's full reasoning is detailed, the precise legal framework used to reach that conclusion is not fully available here, but the court's ultimate holding, that the lower court's affirmance of the revocation was error, is clear from the opinion's opening summary. The dissent, if any, is not described in the available source text and is therefore not reported here. Going forward, this ruling signals that when federal agencies settle disputes with landowners through written agreements covering all known disputes, those agencies may be bound by the terms of those agreements and cannot take additional adverse action that contradicts the settlement.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-3239 ___________________________ Jackie Lackie, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant, v. Eric M. Noe, Colonel, in his official capacity as District Engineer, Little Rock District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; United States Army Corps of Engineers; United States Department of the Army, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: November 20, 2025 Filed: July 13, 2026 ____________ Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Chief Judge. In 2022, sixty-nine trees were cut down on government land between Jackie Lackie’s property and Greers Ferry Lake. The Army Corps of Engineers believed that Lackie cut the trees, so the Corps sent a letter informing Lackie that he would face legal action if he did not pay for the damage. The letter also informed Lackie that the Corps intended to revoke his shoreline use permit. Enclosed with the letter was a proposed settlement and memorandum of agreement that by its terms would settle “all known disputes” between the parties. Lackie signed the settlement agreement and paid the requested sum. The next month, the Corps revoked his shoreline use permit. Lackie sued and alleged that the Corps’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it breached the settlement agreement. The district court affirmed the Corps’s decision to revoke the permit. Lackie appeals, and we reverse. I. Greers Ferry Lake lies south of the Boston Mountains in north central Arkansas. In 1962, the Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of the Greers Ferry Dam, a flood control dam and hydroelectric power plant. The dam formed a reservoir, known today as Greers Ferry Lake. The lake is a premier fishing destination known for its clean water and diverse fish populations. The lake is owned by the federal government, and the Army Corps of Engineers manages the lake and its shoreline. To protect natural environmental conditions and promote safe use of the lake, the Corps administers a shoreline management plan that governs use of the private shoreline and lake. Under the plan, a property owner must obtain a permit to maintain a boat dock on the lake or to modify vegetation on the public land surrounding the lake and its shoreline. In 2001, Lackie purchased property near the lake. The property included a pre- existing boat dock that had been authorized under a permit since 1974. Lackie obtained this permit when he purchased the property, and the permit was reissued in 2004, 2010, 2015, and 2019. The permit allows Lackie to maintain the dock for recreational use and to cross federally-owned land to access the lake. -2- In January 2022, park rangers discovered that sixty-nine trees had been cut down on government land between Lackie’s property and the lake. The damaged trees were adjacent to Lackie’s property, and the Corps inferred that Lackie had felled the trees. The Corps filed a notice of trespass against Lackie’s property in the real estate records of Cleburne County. On April 8, 2022, a deputy operations project manager for the Corps sent Lackie a letter about the trees. He informed Lackie that the destruction of trees on public land was a violation of the shoreline management plan and a federal regulation that forbids the cutting of trees on public property without written permission of the District Commander. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 327.14(a) and (b). The letter offered to settle the regulatory violation if Lackie paid the appraised value of the damaged trees, in the amount of $6,017.28: We are offering you the option of paying this amount to avoid a court appearance. If you agree with the contents, you may sign the enclosed Memorandum of Agreement and return it to this office within 10 days of receipt of this letter. The next paragraph informed Lackie that the Corps was designating the damaged area as a “restoration area” that would be inaccessible for a period so that it could naturally restore itself to the pre-damaged state. The letter continued: We are also recommending the Little Rock District Commander revoke your shoreline use permit 4121 for the dock and path. If the permit is revoked, removal of the boat dock will be required. Once the dock is removed from Greers Ferry Lake this office will not entertain any future requests for a dock at this location, since the area where your path and dock are located is not zoned as Limited Development Area. The letter informed Lackie that the Corps had filed a notice of trespass against his property, and that the notice could be revoked after the violation was resolved. -3- Enclosed with the letter was a proposed settlement and memorandum agreement that read as follows: The Corps wants a long-term solution to this encroachment on public lands. Mr. Lackie admits responsibility for cutting or destroying vegetation on public property. The parties want to settle this case concerning all matters on the public lands. Therefore, the Parties agree to the following: 1. As compensation to the Corps for the damage done in the past, Mr. Lackie agrees to pay the Government $6,017.28 (appraised value for the cut trees) to avoid a court hearing. 2. The entire affected area bounded by Mr. Lackie’s property on one side and Greers Ferry Lake on the other side shall be designated as a restoration area for an indefinite period to begin on the date this agreement is signed. No permits will be allowed in this restoration area during the period of restoration, in order to allow the property to return to its natural state. 3. The Corps will place a “RESTORATION AREA” sign on public property adjacent to Mr. Lackie’s property. 4. Mr. Lackie agrees to cease and refrain from future unauthorized activities on public property. 5. Mr. Lackie agrees to allow Corps personnel and/or contractors to access the public shoreline across his property for the purpose of planting and/or maintaining vegetation adjacent to his property. 6. All the parties agree that this agreement settles all known disputes between the Corps of Engineers and the landowner, Mr. Lackie, as of the date signed. -4- 7. Upon receipt of this signed agreement and payment of $6,017.28, Mr. Rorie (Operations Project Manager) agrees to initiate action to revoke the Notice of Trespass filed in the Cleburne County Courthouse. 8. Upon signing of this agreement, it shall be effective. R. Doc. 26-1 (emphases added). Five days later, Lackie called a park ranger to discuss the letter and the proposed settlement. Lackie denied responsibility for cutting down the trees but agreed to pay the requested settlement amount to remove the notice of trespass from his property. Lackie also asked whether his shoreline use permit would be revoked. The park ranger informed Lackie only that revocation was a lengthy process. Lackie explained that he did not want to lose the dock and offer
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.