
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider a case from Utah that sought control over 18.5 million acres of federally-owned land, effectively upholding a previous lower court ruling that confirmed the federal government’s authority over these territories.
This decision marks a significant setback for Utah, which has long been trying to shift substantial federal land management into state hands.
State’s Constitutional Claims
Utah’s case rested on the belief that the federal government’s extensive oversight violates the Constitution’s Property Clause and infringes on the state’s rights.
State officials argued that this level of federal ownership hampers economic growth, complicates resource management, and restricts public access to land.
With approximately 66 percent of Utah being federally owned, the state contended that federal land management policies place excessive burdens on it and other western states.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling, disappointment resonated among state leaders, including Governor Spencer Cox, Senate President Adams, House Speaker Mike Schultz, and Attorney General Brown.
They had hoped for a faster judicial process and expressed concern that the ruling sidestepped the core of Utah’s constitutional claims.
However, they emphasized that the decision does not inhibit the state’s ability to pursue legal avenues in federal district courts in the future.
Future Land Management Challenges
Moreover, the state officials reaffirmed their willingness to challenge decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that they believe harm Utah’s interests.
They expressed optimism that the upcoming administration would share their vision for effective federal land management, particularly in following the principle of “multiple use.” Their commitment to ensuring that public lands are stewarded by the public was underscored, highlighting its significance to Utah’s cultural heritage and community identity.
This case was particularly notable due to Utah’s interpretation of its entry into the Union in 1896, when it ceded any claims to unappropriated public lands in exchange for statehood.
The Biden administration, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, responded by emphasizing that Utah had surrendered its rights to these lands upon becoming a state, rendering its claims unjustified.
Judicial Trends and Implications
The ruling aligns with an ongoing judicial trend that reinforces federal authority over public land issues.
Last year, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Utah in a challenge concerning the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, both vital environmental preservation sites.
Additionally, a U.S. Circuit Court Judge recently lifted an injunction against the federal government’s moratorium on oil and natural gas leasing, spotlighting the continued challenges surrounding land management in Utah and the broader region.
Source: Jurist