U.S. Supreme Court Shows Utah the Door in State’s Attempt to Grab Public Land

U.S. Supreme Court Shows Utah the Door in State’s Attempt to Grab Public Land 

Last August, the State of Utah sought permission to file suit directly in the United States Supreme Court against the United States, alleging that the ownership of most of the federal lands in Utah was contrary to the U.S. Constitution. On January 13, the Court gave Utah the back of its hand, denying the State’s request without opinion. No justice dissented from the order.

This firm “no thank you” does not mean that the Court has denied Utah’s claims on their merits; only that the Court declined to accept the case. Utah is free to pursue its lawsuit in Federal District Court and, if unsuccessful, could eventually appeal back to the Supreme Court. But that is a long road with plenty of hurdles along the way.

Utah’s “Hail Mary” to the Supreme Court was widely derided by legal experts as a political stunt. The State claimed that the United States cannot own land in the states without a purpose founded in the powers given by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress. But the Federal Government has owned land in the states since the founding of the Republic and the U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions validated the Government’s right to own and dispose of federal lands. Add to that, when Utah became a state in 1896 it explicitly agreed not to make a claim against federal lands. The Court’s decision not to take that case is not exactly a big surprise.

The real burr under Utah’s saddle has always been land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which is nearly half of the land in the State. Utah’s suit did not seek divestment of federal ownership of national parks, national forests, military bases or federal buildings. Essentially, Utah sought divestment of only the BLM land, with the argument that local authorities know better how to manage local lands than the faceless bureaucrats in Washington. Many, however, believe that one of the State’s real goals is to convert federal lands to private use, with the financial benefits going to the State. Lost in the argument was whether and how Utah would pay for federal land, or if the State would simply expect the citizens of the United States to give the land to Utah, so that the State could profit from it.

Utah has vowed to press on with its claims, with the Governor, Attorney General and legislative leaders saying that the State “remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah.” Not exactly a “fight to the death” promise…

‍

Jon Christiansen is a former Chair of the Board of Trustees of Trout Unlimited and a former General Counsel for TU. The views expressed are solely those of the author.

More coverage on the Supreme Court ruling from The Salt Lake Tribune and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.