SCOTUS Snubs Utah's Attempt to Take Back Land from Feds

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Utah's ambitious challenge to federal land ownership, leaving the state’s bid to reclaim control over millions of acres in limbo. While the Supreme Court's denial was recent, the core issue goes back a long time in the state’s history.
How did Utah end up suing Uncle Sam in the first place?
Federal Land Ownership
Historically, the federal government's policy regarding land management was primarily focused on disposing of land to facilitate the growth and development of the nation. This approach stemmed from the vast continental expanse that was available early in the nation's history. As a result, significant portions of land were granted to new states, homesteaders, and various industries such as mining, ranching, and railroads. These lands were often the most fertile and resource-rich, which helped fuel the economic expansion and settlement across the United States.
However, as the availability of land began to diminish towards the end of the 19th century, there was a notable shift in federal policy from disposal to conservation and active management. This shift was driven by the recognition that the remaining public lands held valuable resources that needed protection and sustainable management. Consequently, the government started to establish national parks and other reserved areas, implementing regulations to oversee activities such as mining and grazing. These measures were intended to balance the exploitation of natural resources with the need to preserve the environment for future generations.
Today, approximately 775 million acres of land are under federal management, reflecting this evolved approach to land stewardship. A significant portion of these federally managed lands are located in Alaska and the Western states, areas known for their vast natural resources and unique ecological landscapes. This federal oversight aims to ensure that these lands are used in a way that supports both economic interests and environmental conservation, addressing the complex challenges of resource management in the modern era.
Utah’s Land Dilemma
The U.S. government owns about 69% of the land in Utah, which is around 37.4 million acres out of Utah's total 54.3 million acres. About half of this land, or 18.5 million acres, isn't being used for any specific purpose. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages these lands and makes money from leasing them for activities like oil and gas production, grazing, and commercial filming, as well as selling timber and other resources.
Because the federal government is in charge of such a vast area, Utah loses important powers over more than a third of its land. Utah can't tax it, use eminent domain to build infrastructure like roads, or decide how the land should be used. Essentially, in much of Utah, the federal government has more control than the state does.
The federal government has chosen to keep these lands indefinitely, even though Utah's leaders have asked them to give up ownership. This policy is explicitly stated in federal law. A decade ago, Utah's Republican-led commission contracted a legal consulting team that told them that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant such power. State Republicans took the matter to a vote and decided it was high time to sue Uncle Sam, despite the potential cost and length of such a lawsuit.
Democrats and environmental groups have been opposing the plan, citing high costs and questioning the consultants' objectivity, and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell criticized the effort as misguided. Utah Attorney General's office apparently spent a long time mulling it over, because nothing happened for many years. Then, about a year ago, Utah finally filed a complaint in court against the federal government.
Utah Tries to Sue
Utah argued that the whole situation was unconstitutional. According to them, the Constitution only allows the federal government to own land for specific purposes and only with state approval (for example, D.C. and federal enclaves).
The Constitution's Property Clause allows the government to manage and dispose of public lands, not hold onto them forever without a specific reason. By keeping these lands, Utah argued, the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority and upsetting the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Utah claimed that the situation also undermines the principle that all states should have equal sovereignty, as it reduces Utah's authority compared to other states.
Utah took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court this year — and skipped some steps. In most cases, of course, federal lawsuits have to start in district court and work their way up to SCOTUS. But in some cases, especially where a state is a party, the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction, although the high court can refuse such a request.
Utah went with this approach and asked SCOTUS to declare that the federal policy of keeping these lands indefinitely is unconstitutional. They requested SCOTUS order the U.S. government to start giving up these lands as required by the Constitution. In the legal complaint, the state asked to take back control of about half the land that the feds currently own within the state boundaries. The land Utah is asking for adds up to roughly the size of South Carolina, but doesn’t include Utah’s whopping five national parks and monuments, which would still stay under federal control.
SCOTUS Case DOA
Last month, a state conservation organization called Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in turn sued Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Attorney General Sean Reyes for bringing the lawsuit, claiming that doing so breached Utah’s state constitution by challenging federal land ownership in the Supreme Court. The group aims to prevent the state from "dismantling a core part of Utah’s identity: public lands," according to its legal director. “Utahns love their public lands,” he said. “They’re not about to simply see them sold off or given up without a fight.” The conservation group sought a court order to prevent Utah from pursuing its Supreme Court case and challenging the constitutionality of “unappropriated” public lands in any court.
But they needn’t have worried. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the possibility of the pending litigation by declining to take up the case at all. As is often the case with SCOTUS decisions not to intervene, there was no explanation given as to why the court chose to stay out of it. Utah House Minority Leader Angela Romero said that the decisions serves “as an important reminder that our public lands should not be privatized or exploited for short-term benefits.”
Related Resources
- Justice Kagan Throws Shade at Shadow Docket (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Arizona's Liquor Laws Face Legal Challenge Over Interstate Sales (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Constitutional Powers Over Property (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution)