Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Utah's public lands lawsuit.
- Utah leaders expressed disappointment, noting the ruling doesn't say they can't refile the case in lower courts.
- Utah Democrats and conservation groups celebrated Monday's decision, emphasizing the importance of federal land management for public benefit.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's top elected leaders say they're discouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to not take up the state's public lands lawsuit, but they vow to still challenge Bureau of Land Management decisions.
Utah Democrats and multiple conservation groups, on the other hand, say they're ready to continue to challenge the state on its efforts as they celebrated the high court's decision to punt on the case.
Utah filed its lawsuit in August 2024, appealing to the Supreme Court over the federal government's claim to about 18.5 million acres of "unappropriated" land within the state. The unique measure was made to speed up the judicial process instead of the traditional process, which starts in lower courts.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied Utah's "motion for leave to file a bill of complaint." The court did not provide a reason for its decision, leaving it open to interpretation.
In a joint statement issued hours after the decision, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Attorney General Derek Brown said they are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision.
It wasn't immediately clear if the state would refile its case in a lower court, but state leaders noted Monday that the order was ambiguous enough that it didn't mention anything about "constitutional arguments" or anything that prevents the state from filing in federal district court. They added they're "able and willing" to challenge federal land decisions that "harm Utah," but they also believe some of their concerns might be addressed by President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration that takes office next week.
"We are also heartened to know the incoming 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," their statement says, in part. "We will continue to fight to keep public lands in public hands because it is our stewardship, heritage and home."
Meanwhile, Utah Democrats celebrated Monday's decision after arguing that the federal government had the responsibility to manage the lands for public benefit while the state's case was being considered.
"This decision is a win for all Americans and the protection of our environment," said Utah House Democratic Leader Rep. Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City. "Today's actions serve as an important reminder that our public lands should not be privatized or exploited for short-term benefits."
Multiple conservation groups, including one that sued Utah over its lands lawsuit late last year, were also elated by Monday's decision.
"We're grateful the Supreme Court swiftly rejected the state of Utah's misguided land grab lawsuit. 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," said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, in a statement shortly after the ruling.
SUWA had filed a lawsuit against Utah over its Supreme Court challenge last month because its officials said they were concerned that the land transfer would lead to the lands being sold off and privatized, closing them off to recreators who use them.
It argued that the state's Supreme Court motion breached provisions outlined in the Utah Constitution and the Utah Enabling Act, both of which date back to the 1890s. The group said the state essentially agreed to never stake a claim on the public lands as a condition of its statehood entry and then "expressly reiterated" this commitment through both legislative acts.
Taylor McKinnon, southwest region director of the Center for Biological Diversity, added that he believes the decision shows that the Supreme Court "sided with longstanding legal precedent and our country's common natural heritage."
However, he and others also don't expect the issue to die down anytime soon. McKinnon said he doesn't believe it will be the final attempt to secure public lands in ways that could privatize them, but he sees Monday's ruling as a sign that groups opposed to the measure "can win the battle to defend these precious wild places."
Bloch told KSL NewsRadio that SUWA and other groups will keep track of the state's efforts and challenge them if they believe public lands are threatened. Romero said the Utah House Democratic Caucus is also still "committed to protecting public lands" in future cases.
"These lands are a national treasure," she said. "We will continue to fight to keep them safe, accessible and preserved for future generations."
Contributing: Adam Small
