The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) won’t hear a lawsuit brought by the State of Utah and supported by Gov. Mark Gordon and several Wyoming legislators to gain control over millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management land.
A brief released by SCOTUS on Monday revealed the status of Utah v. United States, filed on Aug. 20, 2024. The brief said, “The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied” without further elaboration.
This decision will be a blow to several states and legislators who welcomed the opportunity to challenge the federal government. Among them are 26 members of the Wyoming Legislature, who submitted a friend of the court brief supporting Utah’s case.
“Governor Gordon is disappointed but not surprised,” said Michael Pearlman, a spokesperson for Gov. Gordon, about the SCOTUS decision. “The governor has been clear in his frustration over a lack of cooperation between federal agencies and the state. His interest in Utah’s motion — as indicated in the amicus — was to see how the courts would view this argument because of the millions of acres of unappropriated public land within Wyoming borders, as well as the way they are managed within the State.”
Utah v. United States
According to the case filed by the State of Utah, the United States owns 69% of the land in Utah, 18.5 million acres, with roughly half of that being “unappropriated” regions that the federal government is holding in perpetuity.
The state of Utah wanted to take control of a vast swath of those unappropriated regions. If successful, around half of the unappropriated lands in Utah would have been transferred from federal agencies to the state government.
“The time has come to bring an end to this patently unconstitutional state of affairs,” reads Utah’s proposed complaint. “Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the United States to hold vast unreserved swathes of Utah’s territory in perpetuity, over Utah’s express objection, without even so much as a pretense of using those lands in the service of any enumerated power.”
If the Supreme Court had heard and ruled in favor of the state of Utah, it would have effectively declared the 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act unconstitutional, which would have had enormous ramifications for federal land holdings across the Western U.S.
Karen Budd-Falen, a land law expert and co-owner of Budd-Falen Law Offices in Cheyenne, wasn’t surprised to hear the Supreme Court declined the case. Utah has been trying to get control of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acreage for two decades but took this case directly to SCOTUS rather than take on the BLM in a district-court-level federal suit.
“Utah was trying to base its case on their state constitution and how they were admitted into the state,” she said. “I've been telling people that I don't know how the court would rule if Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, or some other state tried the same thing because Utah was basing it on their state constitution, and all the states came in differently.”
Budd-Falen said Utah’s argument wasn’t unprecedented, but the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken jurisdiction in cases like this in years. That said, she noted that much was left unsaid in the Jan. 13 brief.
“SCOTUS just said they wouldn’t hear it,” she said. “They didn't say the State of Utah can't bring it back in front of the Utah or Washington D.C. District Court, and they didn't say this case has no merit.”
Since SCOTUS only hears around 2% of the cases presented each year, Utah v. United States already had a slim chance of being heard in the nation’s highest court. The case could be resurrected, but Budd-Falen doesn’t know how it would fare.
“I honestly did not know what the Supreme Court was going to do with it, one way or the other,” she said. “I think there are alternative avenues they could take, but I don’t know whether any of those would work. “
Public Lands Are Priceless
One group that celebrated the rejection of Utah v. United States was the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). The conservation group has opposed Utah’s case since it was filed.
Joel Webster, chief conservation officer for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, called the case “a lose-lose situation for states and all Americans for which these lands are held in public trust.”
Josh Metten, the Wyoming Field Manager for TRCP, was pleased that SCOTUS declined to hear the case, saying the opportunity to explore public lands is “priceless.”
“We understand the frustration with federal land management,” he told Cowboy State Daily, “Fixing those issues shouldn’t mean the real risk of privatization of public lands through federal land transfer.”
Metten said Wyoming sportspeople “overwhelmingly rely” on public lands. Keeping public lands in public hands is a top priority for the TRCP, along with a coalition of 11 Wyoming hunting and angling organizations.
“The TRCP and our partners stand ready to work with the State of Wyoming, local stakeholders, and federal agencies to ensure that the needs of present and future generations of Wyomingites, along with our outstanding wildlife resources, are met through improving the management of public lands,” he said.
When In Rome
The State of Wyoming filed its brief of support for Utah v. United States in October 2024, joining Idaho, Alaska, and the Arizona Legislature. Gov. Mark Gordon issued a statement saying federal ownership of unappropriated land negatively impacts local land use, citing the controversial Rock Springs and Buffalo resource management plans as prime examples.
“The governor remains focused on addressing the issue that the indefinite retention of those large tracts lands is not within the interest of Wyoming when they are not managed collaboratively,” Pearlman said. “Local land uses are at the forefront of public use of public lands, which includes sportsmen, recreational access, conservation and energy development."
U.S. Rep Harriet Hageman also issued a strong statement of support for Utah’s case. She told Cowboy State Daily it was a battle worth fighting for.
“I don’t think our forefathers ever envisioned that the federal government would own this magnitude of real property across the country,” she told Cowboy State Daily in October. “I think they always anticipated that the vast majority of real property would be in private hands or controlled by the states.”
Hageman was not available for comment at the time this story was published.
Pearlman, meanwhile, believes another avenue to address federal lands could be another week away.
"We look forward to a better relationship with the incoming (Trump) administration," he said.
Andrew Rossi can be reached at arossi@cowboystatedaily.com.
