Earlier this year, the State of Utah filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s retention of 18.5 million acres of “unappropriated” lands.”
“Unappropriated” means lands without congressional designation like national parks or forests. The State of Utah’s lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to retain unappropriated land in the state indefinitely. Lands like national parks, forest lands, monuments or tribal lands will not be impacted by the lawsuit.
Since filing the suit, dozens of other states, counties, and organizations have filed briefs requesting the Supreme Court hear the case. Rep. Harriet Hageman, (R-WY) said: “the federal burden in the West infringes on our sovereignty and undermines our equality with other States, all in direct violation of the Constitution.”
According to the Federal Newswire, the legal filing (of the lawsuit) is seen as a test of state sovereignty and federal limits, with significant implications for public land management across the West.
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, who filed the lawsuit, argues that “the fact that the federal government controls nearly 70% of Utah land seriously limits our state sovereignty, or our ability to self-govern.”
Reyes contends that by indefinitely holding “unappropriated” lands, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is violating the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and is overstepping constitutional limits on federal land control within states. Utah is seeking to regain control over lands essential for activities like grazing, energy production, and recreation.
Utah contends that provisions of FLPMA that mandate the federal government retain public lands indefinitely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). The State argues that the clause grants Congress the power to “dispose of” federal lands, and by retaining lands without a specified purpose, the federal government is exceeding its constitutional authority.
Utah argues that the clause was intended to limit federal power and requires the government to dispose of unappropriated lands rather than hold them indefinitely.
Another factor that forced Utah to file suit is the BLM’s Public Lands Rule that created a conservation use on equal footing with grazing and mineral development. The State of Utah said it is “contrary to the BLM’s legal obligation to promote multiple-use and sustained yield under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).”
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) warned that BLM’s recent conservation rule “pose a threat to rural economies and livelihoods,” as they limit essential land uses. “Access and the multiple uses of BLM land are an integral part of life in Western states,” Westerman added.
AG Reyes also claims that FLPMA’s indefinite retention policy treats Utah unequally compared to states with dominion over their lands.
The Federal government controls nearly 70 percent of the land in Utah. Of that, 34 percent, or 18.5 million acres is “unappropriated” land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This represents nearly half of the state of Utah. The remaining federal lands are made up of national parks, monuments, forest, wilderness areas, and Tribal lands comprising 18.8 million acres.
The State of Utah has a website called Stand for our Land at https://standforourland.utah.gov/.
