The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit by Utah that argued the federal government was unconstitutionally holding onto vast, unreserved swathes of the Republican-led state’s territory comprising more than a third of the land within its borders.
The justices declined to allow Utah to pursue a lawsuit directly before the high court challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s administration of about 18.5 million acres of public land that state leaders have repeatedly urged the federal government to relinquish ownership over.
Environmental groups hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to turn away the case, which they said could have implicated more than 200 million acres of public lands across the West and exposed them to privatization and oil and gas drilling.
“We’re grateful the Supreme Court swiftly rejected the State of Utah’s misguided land grab lawsuit,” Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said in a statement.
In a joint statement, Utah Governor Spencer Cox, Attorney General Derek Brown and the leaders of the state’s legislature said they were disappointed and would “continue to fight to keep public lands in public hands because it is our stewardship, heritage and home.”
The state filed its case in August, relying on language in the U.S. Constitution giving the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” over disputes in which a state is a party allowing it to sue directly at the high court instead of litigating first in lower courts.
The federal government controls about 69% of land in Utah, or roughly 37.4 million of the state’s 54.3 million acres, limiting the ability of the state to access those lands for recreation and energy and infrastructure development.
Of that land, 18.5 million acres were unappropriated lands controlled by BLM, which Utah said was earning substantial revenue through leasing the lands for oil and gas development and livestock grazing as well as timber sales.
The land is held pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, under which the federal government retains ownership over those and other public lands except in rare cases, the lawsuit said.
“That policy cannot be squared with the limited authority that the Framers provided the federal government to hold land, with post-ratification practice, or with basic principles of federalism,” Utah’s lawyers, led by Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy, wrote in asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
The lawsuit argued that federal policy goes beyond what the federal government was authorized to do by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to take control of particular areas of land.
Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration countered that Utah’s case should have been first brought in the lower courts. The state acknowledged it could have done so but said letting a district court and federal appeals court weigh in first would be “exceedingly poor use of time and effort.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s office also argued that Congress retains exclusive right to control and dispose of public lands through the Property Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
It also argued Utah’s suit was untimely, noting it was suing 176 years after the United States first acquired the lands at issue and 48 years after Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
The case is State of Utah v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22O160.
For the State of Utah: Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy
For the United States: Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
Read more:
Utah lawsuit challenges federal control of a third of its land
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston)