Utah lawsuit seeks state control over vast areas of federal land

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's Republican leaders made good Tuesday on a decade-old vow to launch a legal challenge aimed at wresting control from the U.S. government over much of the federal lands that dominate the state.

The state's attorney general said he asked to file a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court in what is considered a long-shot attempt to assert state powers on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property across about one-third of Utah.

It marks the latest jab in a running feud between states and the U.S. government over who should control huge swaths of the West and the enormous oil and gas, timber, and other resources they contain.

Federal agencies combined have jurisdiction over almost 70% of Utah.

The lawsuit targets about half of that federal land — some 29,000 square miles (75,000 square kilometers), or an area nearly as large as South Carolina. Those parcels are under land bureau management and used for energy production, grazing, mining, recreation and other purposes.

Utah's world-famous national parks — and the national monuments managed by the land bureau — would remain in federal hands under the lawsuit.

''Utah cannot manage, police or care for more than two thirds of its own territory because it's controlled by people who don't live in Utah, who aren't elected by Utah citizens and not responsive to our local needs," Attorney General Sean Reyes said.

University of Colorado environmental law professor Mark Squillace said the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed and was ''more a political stunt than anything else.''

The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 that governed Utah's designation as a state included a promise that it wouldn't make any claim on federal land, Squillace said. The property clause of the Constitution also gives the federal government absolute authority over public lands, he said.

''This is directly contrary to what they agreed to when they became a state,'' Squillace said. ''The courts have made a more conservative turn, but I don't think even this Supreme Court is likely to overcome the quite clear law and Constitutional provisions that would bar Utah from taking over public lands.''

The lands sought by Utah include remote areas of desert in the little-trafficked western portion of the state but also parcels near some of its treasured national parks, including Arches and Capitol Reef.

Conservationists blasted the lawsuit as a threat to the red rock canyons, mesas and other natural landscapes that draw throngs of tourists to Utah.

The election-year lawsuit amplifies a longstanding grievance among Western Republicans that has also been aired by officials in neighboring states such as Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming.

Their complaints intensified in recent months following the Biden administration's adoption of a new rule for public land management that is meant to put conservation on more equal footing with oil drilling, grazing and other extractive industries. Republicans and industry representatives denounced the rule as a backdoor way to exclude development on government acreage that is often cheap to lease.

A federal judge last year dismissed a lawsuit from Utah that challenged President Joe Biden's restoration of two sprawling national monuments in the state that had been downsized under then-President Donald Trump. The judge said Biden acted within his authority when he issued proclamations restoring Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in 2021 on land sacred to many Native Americans.

Utah had passed a law in 2012 demanding the federal government hand over federally controlled lands by the end of 2014. When that deadline passed, state officials began preparing a legal challenge that has now come to fruition.

State leaders ultimately scaled down the original vision for a near-total land grab, opting to fight for just half of the federal land in the state. They say the parcels are being held by the Bureau of Land Management without designating a purpose.

Bureau of Land Management spokesperson Brian Hires said the agency would not comment on pending litigation.

Reyes declined to reveal the expected legal expenses but said those would be less than the $14 million previously projected because the scope of the challenge was pared down and because they are trying to go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Federal lawsuits generally start in district courts before working their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeals. However, the Constitution allows some cases to begin at the high court when states are involved. The Supreme Court can refuse such requests.

___