Nick Pope
Contributor
Utah filed a major lawsuit with the Supreme Court on Tuesday that could have major implications for federalism and the administration of public lands across the country if successful.
Utah’s lawsuit contends that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not have the authority to effectively hold “unappropriated” state lands indefinitely under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the state announced. The federal government controls about 18.5 million acres of “unappropriated” Utah land under the FLPMA, and Utah’s suit argues that the state ought to control this land because nothing in the Constitution expressly permits the federal government to do so instead.
In the context of federal lands, “appropriated” land is that which has been designated for specific purposes like military use or to serve as a national park, for example, according to the state of Utah. By comparison, “unappropriated” territory is essentially land that the federal government is controlling “without formally reserving it for any designated purpose.” (RELATED: Native American-Owned Entities Sue Biden Admin Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Decision To Kill Alaska Mining Project)
READ THE LAWSUIT:
“It is not a secret that we live in the most beautiful state in the nation. But, when the federal government controls two-thirds of Utah, we are extremely limited in what we can do to actively manage and protect our natural resources,” Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said in a statement about his state’s lawsuit. “We are committed to ensuring that Utahns of all ages and abilities have access to public lands. The BLM has increasingly failed to keep these lands accessible and appears to be pursuing a course of active closure and restriction. It is time for all Utahns to stand for our land.”
The state contends in its lawsuit that “Utah is deprived of basic and fundamental sovereign powers as to more than a third of its territory” because federal control prevents the state from taxing those land holdings and using eminent domain to build key infrastructure projects, for example. The status quo with respect to federal control over much of Utah is “egregious federal overreach” that “disrupts the constitutionally prescribed balance of power between the federal government and the States” and “cannot continue,” the lawsuit states.
In total, the federal government controls about 70% of Utah’s land, and the “unappropriated” land that is the subject of Utah’s legal challenge makes up about 34% of the state’s territory. The federal government also controls massive swaths of the land in many other Western states, including Nevada, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska.
Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, explained the possible effects of Utah’s lawsuit in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. The litigation could be hugely impactful beyond Utah’s borders if it is successful, according to Ebell.
“Utah’s suit is one of the most important federal lands cases ever brought to the Supreme Court. It raises fundamental questions of federalism and statehood and has wide ramifications,” Ebell said in his statement. “If the Supreme Court agrees that FLPMA conflicts with the Constitution’s property clause, then it will apply to all unappropriated federal lands in the West and Alaska.”
“I think Utah’s legal case is strong, but so is the practical impetus for bringing it. The federal government’s incredible mismanagement of federal lands is harming the environment and economy in many ways in Utah and across the West and Alaska,” Ebell continued. “Utah and other states have proven that they are much better stewards of their lands and wildlife than the federal land agencies. Turning management of 18.5 million acres of unappropriated federal lands (which is about one-third of the state) over to state and county management would be a boon to the environment and to rural economies.”
BLM declined to comment for this story, citing the pending nature of the litigation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The US Federal Government seems to be taking the EU’s Jean-Claude Junker’s words to heart:
“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
Isn’t it the other way around , the Feds had title long before Utah existed, so can’t ‘taken’ it . If anyone gets it back it would be Indian tribes who lost or signed it away to US Army, and before that it was territory of Mexico lost by conquest and treaty (treaty of Hildago)
Obviously, many Federal Bureaucracies are unaware of State Sovereignty, the corner stone of the “United States” [NOT Federal States] as described in the constitution and the Federalist Papers.
Obviously? I presume some people might not agree.
Many, not all.
That only matters for states who were sovereign before they joined the Union. Texas, California and Hawaii come to mind outside the original 13.
Utah was a federal territory first, not sovereign
Oh please. Ignoring Article IV of the US constitution gets you nowhere, fast.
BLM is to manage until disposal.
Feds are to own listed lands only.
Intent was to dispose of non listed lands. Fed control of a significant portion of an individual State is a violation of the equal footing doctrine (article 4).
Your knowledge of the US Constitution is either less than my great grandchildren [all below 5 YO] or you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the Marxist professors.
The Louisiana Purchase was debated as unconstitutional, and much like Biden pushing ahead with his student loan debt transfer after being told, and saying himself, that it was unconstitutional, so too did Thomas Jefferson push ahead with it despite having doubts as to its constitutionality. There is nothing in the Constitution about acquiring new land, and treaties cannot accomplish what the Constitution does not allow.
Treaty of Hildago with Mexico obtained new territory for the US in the west. It was organised as US Federal territories Only Texas and California were ‘existing states’ who joined the union as such.
The land authority granted by the States to the Federal government in the Constitution is limited as follows:
Article I Section 8–To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.
They have no authority to restrict the people of Utah from use and enjoyment of our lands. People on the Left coasts certainly do not have such authority to dictate to us.
Wrong-O, Buffalo Bob: The moment Utah was admitted as a State to the Republic of the United States of America it obtained all of the rights and privileges attended to that status. The Federal government has long used it unlimited ability to borrow and print money to bribe or otherwise coerce the States into relinquishing their Constitutional rights and privileges.
Per constitution the feds are to own limited lands.
Original intent for BLM was to manage lands for disposal … not perpetual ownership amd management.
Feds need to get rid of all non listed lands.
Some framers argued that even the acrage of DC was too much and could be leveraged for power.
Constitution is silent as to disposal methodology of lands. But intent is fairly clear that monopolistic ownership & management for federal purpose was not part of the plan.
“If anyone gets it back it would be Indian tribes who lost or signed it away to US Army, and before that it was territory of Mexico lost by conquest and treaty (treaty of Hildago)”
Oh, yeah? Well tell that to Anzick-1. This land belongs to the Clovis! From the sea, to the sea, Clovis people shall be free! Excelsior!
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This has been “reinterpreted” as:
“We can do whatever we can get away with.”.
And one party [democrats] repeatedly pass laws or issue Executive Orders that they know are unconstitutional, contrary to the Federalist Papers and against their sworn oath of office knowing that by the time it progresses through the carefully picked democratic courts will have been deemed to have precedence and/or the harm has already been done. E.g. The Democratic endorsement of the “Invasion” of the U.S. Borders, ignoring the 100 of thousands of deaths, indentured servitude of women and children and importation of drugs, bankruptcy of hundreds of rural hospitals and school systems. All of which adds $Trillions of dollars per year in federal debt and tens of thousands of dollars in tax increases by all tax payers and through the roof inflation designed to influence people to vote for Marxist Socialism policies.
“Utah filed a major lawsuit with the Supreme Court”
Does filing a suit at the SC mean the SC will hear the case? Or can it throw out the case?
Who decides, a subcommittee of the SC?
Its just election year ‘Red meat’ thrown on the table.
if they were serious they would file in Federal court in Salt Lake City, like all other disputes between states and the Fed government
What you are thinking of is disputes between states SC can run an actual trial, but they dont they delegate a special master who is retired former senior judge to hear the arguments for and against. That decision is what the SC review.
Most likely they wont hear the case at all as it has to start in the normal way in Federal Court in Utah
You keep denying what the constitution says. Why do you insist on spewing nonsense? It just makes you look silly.
Article III Section 2
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
Land disputes between States go to Supreme Court, not federal court.
Does Fed control of lands within states such as Utah, Alaska, Oregon, Montana etc. create measurable/significant negatives (or positives) for those states, as compared to states like new hampshire, delaware, maine, etc.? Yes or no.
If yes then then control needs to be relinquished.
The obvuous answer is yes. One example is the feds paying in ‘lieu monies’ for the lack of (timber) resource use/income for years. This fed budget item is now political and is always in threat of being revoked.
Like here in Canada, if the land has not bee “appropriated” for federal uses by now, shouldn’t it revert to the indigenous people who were there before the land was taken? Provided, of course, that there is clear evidence that the land was extensively used by those people? Otherwise, what Utah is seeking seems to be consistent with what the Constitution allows.
The current administration in Washington wants to prioritize these unappropriated lands, at least that are not too steep nor too sensitive in a few disputable ways, for wind turbines and solar farms.
Other example that the Feds should not having substantial holdings … the recently posed idea that abortion should/could be legal on all federal holdings, despite state laws.