The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Utah’s challenge against public lands, striking a major blow to the state’s effort to wrest control of millions of acres of land from the federal government.
The state in August filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare the federal Bureau of Land Management’s ownership of 18.5 million acres of land in Utah unconstitutional, with potential ramifications for public lands across the country.
The filing, which state leaders said was the result of “decades of legal analysis,” targeted BLM land “unappropriated” to parks, monuments or other national sites.
Utah argued the BLM’s ownership and oversight of that land harms the state’s sovereignty and that the federal government should start to “dispose of these lands.”
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, House Speaker Mike Schultz and Attorney General Derek Brown said they were disappointed in the court’s decision, but noted that the decision does not prevent the state from filing the case in federal district court in the future.
“We are also heartened to know the incoming [Trump] administration shares our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management,” they said in a Monday statement. “We will continue to fight to keep public lands in public hands because it is our stewardship, heritage and home.”
The state has paid Clement & Murphy, PLLC, a law firm based in Virginia, over $500,000 since 2023 to litigate the case.
Utah has also budgeted more than $2.6 million for a public relations campaign to raise “awareness” that the BLM’s policies for public land in the West “are harming Utahns by restricting access to public lands, hindering active management, and reducing economic and recreation opportunities.”
Sen. John Curtis said he will continue to work with state officials on public lands issues despite the court’s choice.
“I cannot emphasize enough that with 70% of our state controlled by the federal government, everyday life in Utah is affected by decisions made in Washington,” he said in a statement. “Building roads, moving cattle and cleaning up campgrounds all require navigating a behemothic bureaucracy that’s stacked up against the average Utahn.”
Rep. Celeste Maloy voiced support for the state leaders’ effort to bring public lands under local control, saying in a statement that “Utahns, the people living and working the closest to these lands, should not be shut out of management decisions by bureaucrats at agencies.”
Sen. Mike Lee also expressed frustration with the court’s refusal, adding that “the fight for local control and state sovereignty is far from over, and this setback doesn’t preclude the state from making these arguments in a lower court.”
The environmental nonprofit Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) in December sued the Utah governor and attorney general for bringing this case to the Supreme Court.
The group wants the state 3rd District Court to bar Utah from questioning the constitutionality of “unappropriated” public lands in any court.
“We’re grateful the Supreme Court swiftly rejected the State of Utah’s misguided land grab lawsuit,” Steve Bloch, SUWA’s legal director, said in a statement. “For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has affirmed the power of the federal government to hold and manage public lands on behalf of all Americans.”
Utah House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, praised the Supreme Court’s decision as a “win for all Americans and the protection of our environment” in a statement.
“Today’s actions serve as an important reminder that our public lands should not be privatized or exploited for short-term benefits,” she said.
