The U.S. Supreme Court early Monday denied Utah’s lawsuit to acquire management of 18.5 million acres of federally owned land.
Utah filed its lawsuit against the United States government last August. The state argued that it is deprived of more than one-third of the land within its border, deeming the amount of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management “unconstitutional” and a federal policing of power.
In an effort to build a following under the lawsuit, state officials marketed campaign efforts such as Stand For Our Land to show the vast amount — nearly 69% — of Utah land was owned by the U.S. government and 34% of it was deemed “unappropriated,” meaning it is held with no significant purpose.
Without explaining why the case would not be heard, the justices issued an order stating, “The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.”
In response to the high court’s decision, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton and Speaker of the House Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said they would continue to fight for Utah to have more land control:
“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.”
They also included optimism for the incoming Trump administration for sharing their “commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands” and improving management over the land. In the state’s lawsuit, Utah officials accused BLM of “exploiting” its authority through private deals that allowed parties to utilize the land’s resources for oil, grazing, etc., making the federal government large amounts of revenue.
If the case had been accepted, other Western states would have likely followed suit, such as Nevada, Colorado, California, and even Alaska, which have some of the country’s highest percentages of federally owned land.
However, not every state official wanted the Supreme Court to hear Utah’s case.
Utah House Democratic Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, said in a press release that she was grateful the case was denied, making it a “win for all Americans and the protection of our environment.”
In the same language used in Utah’s lawsuit against the BLM, Romero said if the 18.5 million acres of federal land were handed over to the state, it would be “exploited,” and the land’s “environmental, economic and cultural value(s)” would have been put aside for quick economic gain.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed a response lawsuit against Cox and former Attorney General Sean Reyes last month, accusing Utah’s state leaders of violating Article Three of the Utah Constitution, which declares that the people of Utah will “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within (its) boundaries” to the U.S. government.
Steve Bloch, the legal director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, issued a statement Monday morning expressing his gratitude to the Supreme Court for affirming the federal government’s role as the keeper of the public lands that he said benefit all Americans.
“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 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance will continue our unwavering efforts to ensure every attempted land grab by Utah politicians fails,” Bloch said.
With the case no longer proceeding with the Supreme Court, state leaders can move to have a similar lawsuit heard in a lower court. However, any traction is unlikely, given that many predicted the original suit would fail.