Small cliffs and rock formations in Utah’s west desert. (Getty Images)
The federal government’s response to Utah’s lawsuit seeking to take over millions of acres of public land says the state’s legal challenge is “without merit.”
In a brief filed last Thursday, attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny Utah’s motion, writing that the state’s argument doesn’t hold water. Plus, the state fails to meet the criteria that would allow a petition directly to the nation’s high court rather than going through lower courts first, the filing claims.
Filed in August, Utah’s lawsuit questions whether the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, can indefinitely hold onto land without giving it a designation.
The BLM controls about 18.5 million acres of what the state calls “unappropriated land” in Utah — the land is still leased for grazing, recreation and mineral extraction, but lacks a formal designation.
National parks, national monuments, national forests, Indian reservations or wilderness areas have a designation, and therefore are not considered “unappropriated.” But about 34% of the entire state meets the state’s definition of “unappropriated,” much of it found in remote western Utah.
The lawsuit claims the federal government lacks the constitutional power to hold that land “in perpetuity … over the State’s objection.” The Supreme Court should declare the practice of holding unappropriated land unconstitutional, Utah argues, and issue an injunction that would start the process of a massive, 18.5 million acre land transfer.
But the federal government says that argument lacks merit and “faces significant jurisdictional and procedural barriers.”
Utah argues the federal government can only hold onto land if it has a designated purpose; the federal government asks “why a formal reservation would make a legal difference” under the constitution.
Utah argues the federal government can’t retain land over its “express objection”; the federal government says that runs afoul of the constitution’s supremacy clause, which states federal law takes precedence over state law.
Utah argues Congress has a “duty to dispose of unappropriated public lands”; the federal government says that while Congress has the power to dispose of land, it does not have a duty to do so.
And, Utah raises several policy objections, including its inability to collect revenue on federal land; the federal government says that argument is better suited for Congress, not the country’s high court.
The brief also takes issue with Utah invoking original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the Supreme Court rather than starting in a lower court and then going through the appeals process. To invoke original jurisdiction, the issue needs to be between a state and the federal government.
That’s because the case does not involve a dispute over state boundaries, the brief reads, or Utah’s ability to enforce criminal and civil laws on the land in question.
This article was first published by the Utah News Dispatch, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com. Follow Utah News Dispatch on Facebook and X.