Feds respond to Utah’s public lands lawsuit • Idaho Capital Sun

The federal government’s response to Utah’s lawsuit seeking to take millions of acres of public land says the state’s legal challenge is “meritless.”

In a brief filed last Thursday, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Utah’s request, writing that the state’s argument lacks merit. In addition, the state does not meet the criteria that would allow a petition to be submitted directly to the country’s highest court instead of first going to the lower courts, the lawsuit says.

Utah’s lawsuit, filed in August and joined by the state of Idaho, questions whether the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can hold land indefinitely without issuing a designation.

12 states support Utah’s lawsuit to take over millions of acres of federally controlled land

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 purposes but lacks formal designation.

National parks, national monuments, national forests, Native American reservations, or wilderness areas are designated and therefore are not considered “inappropriate.” But about 34% of the entire state meets the state’s definition of “unappropriated,” much of it in remote western Utah.

The lawsuit claims the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to retain this land “in perpetuity…over and above the state’s objection.” The Supreme Court should declare the practice of holding unexpropriated land unconstitutional, Utah argues, and issue an injunction that would begin the process of a massive land transfer of 18.5 million acres.

But the federal government says the argument is baseless and “faces significant legal and procedural hurdles.”

Utah argues that the federal government can only keep land if it serves a specific purpose; The federal government asks “why a formal reservation would make a legal difference” in terms of the constitution.

Utah argues that the federal government cannot retain land despite its “explicit objection”; According to the federal government, this violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Utah argues that Congress has a “duty not to alienate expropriated public lands”; The federal government says that while Congress has the power to dispose of land, it is not required to do so.

And Utah raises several policy objections, including its inability to generate revenue on federal lands; The federal government says that argument is better suited to Congress rather than the nation’s highest court.

The brief also questions Utah’s reliance on original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the Supreme Court rather than starting at a lower court and then going through the appeals process. To invoke original jurisdiction, the matter must be decided between a state and the federal government.

That’s because the case is not about a dispute over state lines, the brief says, nor about Utah’s ability to enforce criminal and civil laws on the land in question.

Like the Idaho Capital Sun, Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network that is a 501c(3) charity supported by grants and a coalition of donors. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact Editor McKenzie Romero: (email protected). Follow Utah News Dispatch on Facebook and X.