The U.S. Supreme Court announced Jan. 13 it will not hear Utah’s sweeping public lands lawsuit, where the state argued it should take over 18.5 million acres of federally controlled land within its borders.
The state can still file another, similar lawsuit with a lower court. But as of the morning of Jan. 13, Utah’s ambitious legal challenge, which could have set the precedent for a massive land transfer across the West, is at a dead end.
In a joint statement, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R), Senate President Stuart Adams (R-Layton), Speaker of the House Mike Schultz (R-Hooper) and Attorney General Derek Brown vowed to keep fighting “to keep public lands in public hands because it is our stewardship, heritage and home.”
“While we were hopeful that our request would expedite the process, we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up this case. The Court’s order does not say anything about the merits of Utah’s important constitutional arguments or prevent Utah from filing its suit in federal district court,” the statement read.
The statement noted that the incoming Trump administration shares “our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management.” The state is still able to challenge management decisions from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), they said.
Filed in August, the state had petitioned directly to the nation’s high court, asking justices to declare it unconstitutional for the BLM to hold onto land without a formal designation.
About 34% of the entire state, roughly 18.5 million acres, is “unappropriated land.” Controlled by the BLM, that land is still leased for grazing, mining or recreation, but lacks a designation, like a national forest or national park. Much of that land is in Utah’s West Desert.
In its complaint, Utah argued that it’s unconstitutional for the BLM to hold that unappropriated land in perpetuity. Utah invoked original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the U.S. Supreme Court in certain cases rather than go through lower courts first.
The lawsuit had the potential to unravel the federal government’s system of land management, as it would have likely set a precedent for other states to take over unappropriated land. A number of conservative politicians and Republican-led states filed briefs in support of the suit.
State leaders called the lawsuit “historic”—the state is better poised to manage land within its borders, they argued. The red tape that stymies forest management, permitting and industry would be gone, and local governments could generate more tax revenue. They launched a media campaign called “Stand for Our Land,” which included billboards, print, TV and radio ads and a website advocating for the state’s position in the lawsuit. That PR campaign, along with attorney fees, cost taxpayers more than $1 million.
Environmental groups called the suit a “land grab”—they have little faith in state leaders who promised they wouldn’t privatize the land if they got it, and worried that it would result in environmental degradation while costing the state an unknown amount. “I don’t even know if Utah has the infrastructure to manage 18.5 million acres. How are we going to pay for this?” Utah Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla (D-Salt Lake City) said during a public lands rally.
But early Monday morning, the Supreme Court succinctly wrote: “The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied,” marking an end, for now, to the lawsuit.
It’s unclear what the state’s next steps are. Cox previously told reporters that if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, they would file in a lower court—the joint statement suggests state leaders are considering that.
Politicians, enviros react
Monday’s news brought out a flurry of reactions. Utah’s lawsuit was polarizing, with many of the state’s conservative politicians in staunch support, while Democrats, environmentalists, hunters and anglers worried it would set a precedent that could limit access.
House Minority Leader Angela Romero (D-Salt Lake City), said she was grateful for the court’s decision, calling it “a win for all Americans and the protection of our environment.”
“Today’s actions serve as an important reminder that our public lands should not be privatized or exploited for short-term benefits. While Utah attempted to take control of millions of acres of public land, the Court’s refusal to hear the lawsuit affirmed that the federal government has the responsibility to manage these lands in a way that benefits everyone,” she said.
Utah’s senior U.S. senator, Republican Mike Lee, took to social media to express his disappointment. Lee, an ardent critic of the federal government, had signed onto an amicus brief in the fall supporting the state’s stance.
“The fight for local control and state sovereignty is far from over, and this setback doesn’t preclude the state from making these arguments in a lower court,” Lee wrote on X. “The people of Utah deserve to have greater access to 2/3 of the land in our state—whether for recreation, natural resources, building new homes for hardworking families, or otherwise.”
Lee pledged to support legislation that gives “America back to Americans.”
Environmental groups celebrated the decision, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which just a few weeks ago sued Utah over its Supreme Court challenge. The group argued that Utah had to dispose of that land for it to become a state, therefore any attempt to take it over violates the Utah Constitution.
“For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has affirmed the power of the federal government to hold and manage public lands on behalf of all Americans,” said Steve Bloch, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance’s legal director. “If successful, Utah’s lawsuit would result in the sale of millions of acres of public lands in redrock country to the highest bidder, an end to America’s system of federal public lands, and the dismantling of the American West as we know it.”
The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy nonprofit, called the announcement an “embarrassment” for the state, which has already “wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on this misguided lawsuit.”
“Even this staunchly conservative Supreme Court refused to take up Utah’s complaint, likely because it relies on a blatant misreading of the Constitution and would disrupt over a century of legal precedent and property law,” said the group’s executive director, Jennifer Rokala. “The state of Utah should give up on its wild goose chase and not waste even more taxpayer money fighting this losing battle in the lower courts.”
The Wilderness Society said the court’s decision was “the right choice,” calling Utah’s lawsuit “massively flawed.” And the Center for Biological Diversity commended justices for siding “with longstanding legal precedent and our country’s common natural heritage.” — Kyle Dunphey, Utah News Dispatch
Republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
