Court Decision Denies Utah’s Land Lawsuit
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Utah’s lawsuit challenging federal control over 18.5 million acres of public lands, dealing a significant blow to the state’s efforts to gain jurisdiction over these lands. The case, filed in August, sought to declare the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) ownership of the lands unconstitutional. Utah leaders argued that the federal government’s oversight infringes on state sovereignty and called for the “disposal” of the lands, which are not designated as parks, monuments, or national sites.
Governor Spencer Cox and state legislative leaders expressed disappointment in the court’s refusal but emphasized their intention to explore alternative legal avenues, potentially refiling the case in federal district court. In a statement, they noted their commitment to the principle of “multiple use” for federal lands and criticized current management practices.
The state has already allocated significant resources to the cause, spending over $500,000 on legal fees and budgeting $2.6 million for a public relations campaign. The campaign highlights concerns that BLM policies restrict public access, hinder active land management, and limit economic and recreational opportunities for Utahns.
Federal Control Sparks Local Frustration
Utah’s leaders, including Sen. John Curtis and Rep. Celeste Maloy, voiced concerns about federal oversight, noting its impact on daily life in a state where the federal government controls 70% of the land. Curtis criticized the bureaucratic challenges Utahns face in managing essential activities like building infrastructure, ranching, and maintaining public spaces. Maloy echoed these sentiments, asserting that locals should have a greater role in decision-making for lands they live and work near.
Sen. Mike Lee expressed frustration with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case but remained steadfast in advocating for local control and state sovereignty. He underscored that the decision does not preclude Utah from pursuing the issue in lower courts.
Environmental Advocates Applaud Supreme Court’s Decision
Environmental groups and state Democrats celebrated the court’s decision as a victory for public lands and environmental protection. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), an environmental nonprofit, had previously sued Utah’s governor and attorney general for attempting to challenge the constitutionality of federal land ownership. SUWA praised the Supreme Court’s swift dismissal of Utah’s lawsuit, reaffirming the federal government’s authority to manage public lands for the benefit of all Americans.
Steve Bloch, SUWA’s legal director, described Utah’s lawsuit as a misguided attempt to seize public lands. Meanwhile, Utah House Minority Leader Angela Romero lauded the ruling as a step toward preserving natural resources for future generations. Romero emphasized the importance of protecting public lands from privatization or exploitation, asserting that these spaces are a shared heritage.
The decision has reignited the longstanding debate over federal land management in the West, with Utah’s leaders pledging to continue their fight for local control despite the setback.
