SCOTUS will not hear Utah’s lawsuit to control 18.5 million acres of public land

By Kyle Dunphey
Utah News Dispatch

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Jan. 13 that it will not hear Utah’s sweeping public lands lawsuit, in which the state argued it should take over 18.5 million acres of federally controlled land within its borders.

The state can still file another, similar lawsuit with a lower court. But as of Jan. 13, Utah’s ambitious legal challenge, which could have set the precedent for a massive land transfer across the West, is at a dead end.

In a joint statement Jan. 13, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox joined Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, House Speaker Mike Schultz and Attorney General Derek Brown — all Republicans — in vowing to keep fighting “to keep public lands in public hands because it is our stewardship, heritage and home.”

“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,” the statement reads.

The statement noted that the incoming Donald Trump administration shares “our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management.” The state is still able to challenge management decisions from the Bureau of Land Management, they said.

Filed in August, the state had petitioned directly to the nation’s high court, asking justices to declare it unconstitutional for the BLM to hold onto land without a formal designation.

Utah lawsuit had potential to unravel federal government’s land management system

About 34% of the entire state, roughly 18.5 million acres, is “unappropriated land.” Controlled by the BLM, that land is still leased for grazing, mining or recreation, but lacks a designation, like a national forest or national park. Much of that land is in Utah’s West Desert.

In its complaint, Utah argued that it’s unconstitutional for the BLM to hold that unappropriated land in perpetuity. Utah invoked original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the U.S. Supreme Court in certain cases rather than go through lower courts first.

The lawsuit had the potential to unravel the federal government’s system of land management, as it would have likely set a precedent for other states to take over unappropriated land. A number of conservative politicians and Republican-led states filed briefs in support of the suit, including Idaho.

“The [Supreme] Court’s refusal to hear Utah’s case is a victory for Americans that cherish public lands, clean water, and fish and wildlife,” said John Robison, Public Lands and Wildlife director for the Idaho Conservation League, in a press release. “But this fight isn’t over. Utah could refile in lower courts, and the case might eventually return to the Supreme Court. The threat is real, and we must stay vigilant.”

In the release, ICL listed areas in Idaho that could be affected if a similar proposal were to be successful in the future.

“Examples of BLM lands at risk in Idaho include: the Hulls Gulch National Recreation Trail in the Boise Foothills, the lower Salmon River, the South Fork Snake River, the Discovery Hill Trail System near Salmon, Bald Mountain Ski Area in Ketchum (40% is unappropriated BLM), St. Anthony Sand Dunes, the Mineral Ridge National Recreation Trail near Coeur d’Alene, public boat ramps that provide access to Lake Coeur d’Alene, and more,” the release stated. “These beloved lands represent what is special about Idaho’s way of life.”

Utah’s state leaders called the lawsuit “historic” — the state is better poised to manage land within its borders, they argued. The red tape that stymies forest management, permitting and industry would be gone, and local governments could generate more tax revenue. They launched a media campaign called “Stand for Our Land,” which included billboards, print, TV and radio ads, and a website advocating for the state’s position in the lawsuit. That P.R. campaign, along with attorney fees, cost taxpayers more than $1 million.

Environmental groups called the suit a “land grab” — they have little faith in state leaders who promised they wouldn’t privatize the land if they got it, and worried that it would result in environmental degradation while costing the state an unknown amount. 

“I don’t even know if Utah has the infrastructure to manage 18.5 million acres. How are we going to pay for this?” Utah House Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said on Jan. 11 during a public lands rally.

But early on the morning of Jan. 13, the Supreme Court succinctly wrote: “The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied,” marking an end to the lawsuit — for now.

Environmental groups celebrate SCOTUS decision

It’s unclear what the state’s next steps are. Cox previously told reporters that if the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, they would file in a lower court — the joint statement on Jan. 13 suggests state leaders are considering that.

Environmental groups celebrated the decision, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which just a few weeks ago sued Utah over its Supreme Court challenge. The group argued that Utah had to dispose of that land for it to become a state, therefore any attempt to take it over violates the Utah Constitution.

“For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has affirmed the power of the federal government to hold and manage public lands on behalf of all Americans,” said Steve Bloch, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance’s legal director, on Jan. 13. “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 Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy nonprofit, called the announcement an “embarrassment” for the state, which has already “wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on this misguided lawsuit.”

“Even this staunchly conservative Supreme Court refused to take up Utah’s complaint, likely because it relies on a blatant misreading of the Constitution and would disrupt over a century of legal precedent and property law,” said the group’s executive director, Jennifer Rokala. “The state of Utah should give up on its wild goose chase and not waste even more taxpayer money fighting this losing battle in the lower courts.”

This story was produced by nonprofit news outlet Utah News Dispatch, which — like the Idaho Capital Sun — is part of the States Newsroom nationwide reporting project. Idaho Capital Sun Editor-in-Chief Christina Lords contributed reporting.