Utah filed a legal challenge this week in the U.S. Supreme Court against the federal government to confront a longstanding issue that involves the control and ownership of federal lands within the state. If accepted by the Court, the case could have implications for other western states where the federal government owns large swathes of land.
In the filing by Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and Stanford Purser, the state’s Solicitor General, the state argues that the federal government’s retention of unappropriated lands—land not reserved for any specific federal purpose—within its borders is unconstitutional. The state says the federal policy infringes upon its sovereignty, and that it violates principles of federalism and equal state sovereignty.
Federal Government Overreach
The federal government owns approximately 37.5 million acres of land in Utah, or nearly 69% of the state’s total land area. About 18.5 million of those acres are classified as unappropriated, meaning that the lands are not being used by the federal government for any specific purpose, such as military bases, national parks, or other federal installations.
Utah argues that the indefinite retention of these lands by the federal government violates the Constitution. The state asserts that the federal government does not have the authority to hold onto unappropriated lands within a state indefinitely, particularly when they are not being used for any enumerated federal powers.
Utah's filing draws on constitutional provisions and historical interpretations. The state argues that under Article I of the Constitution, the federal government’s powers are limited and enumerated. The federal government, Utah contends, has no general police power and can only exercise powers specifically granted by the Constitution.
The complaint cites the Property Clause of Article IV, which gives Congress the power to "dispose of" and make rules regarding federal property. However, Utah argues that the clause does not give the federal government the authority to retain lands indefinitely without any designated federal use.
The filing also refers to the Enclave Clause of Article I, which allows the federal government to acquire land within a state for specific purposes, such as military installations, but only with the consent of the state legislature. Utah argues that the clause further supports the notion that the federal government’s land ownership within a state should be limited and purposeful.
Utah's Sovereignty and the Equal Footing Doctrine
A significant portion of Utah's argument is based on the principle of state sovereignty and the Equal Footing Doctrine. The state contends that the federal government’s vast land holdings within Utah undermine the state’s sovereignty by depriving it of essential powers, such as taxation and eminent domain, over a large portion of its territory. This situation, Utah argues, places it on unequal footing with other states, particularly those east of the Rocky Mountains, where the federal government owns little to no land.
The filing also notes that when Utah was admitted to the Union in 1896, it did so with the understanding that the federal government would dispose of the unappropriated lands within its borders, a promise that Utah claims has not been fulfilled.
Economic and Practical Implications
Utah also raises concerns about the practical and economic harms caused by the federal government’s retention of its lands. This includes the inability of the state to use the lands for its own purposes, including infrastructure development, resource extraction, and other economic activities. The filing claims that the federal government’s management of these lands, particularly through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), often conflicts with the state’s interests and priorities.
For example, the BLM’s land-use plans, which govern activities such as grazing, mining, and recreation on these federal lands, are made without the input or consent of Utah’s elected officials, effectively overriding the state’s legislative authority over these areas.
Request for Relief
Utah is asking the Supreme Court to declare the federal government’s policy of indefinite land retention within the state unconstitutional. Specifically, the state seeks a judgment that the policy embodied in 43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(1), which governs federal land retention, is unconstitutional. Utah also requests that the Court order the federal government to begin the process of disposing of the unappropriated lands in accordance with the Constitution.
In its filing, Utah emphasizes that it is not challenging the federal government’s retention of lands that are actively being used for specific federal purposes, such as national parks or military installations.
The legal team that filed the petition includes Paul Clement of the law firm Clement & Murphy, who served as the U.S. Solicitor General from 2005 to 2008 under President George W. Bush. Other members of the firm who are listed on the petition include Erin Murphy, Harker Rhodes IV, and Joseph DeMott.
