In a significant legal development, the U.S. Department of Justice has responded to Utah’s lawsuit over public land ownership, dismissing the state’s claims as “without merit.” Last Thursday, federal attorneys filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Utah’s motion, arguing that the state’s legal challenge fails to meet the necessary criteria for direct review by the nation’s highest court.
Filed in August, Utah’s lawsuit—supported by Idaho—questions the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) authority to retain millions of acres of federal land without formal designation. According to the lawsuit, the federal government’s practice of holding 18.5 million acres of what the state calls “unappropriated land” is unconstitutional and violates Utah’s rights.
The dispute centers on land that is leased for activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral extraction but lacks a formal designation like national parks, wilderness areas, or Native American reservations. These unappropriated lands make up nearly 34% of Utah’s total land area, much of it located in the state’s remote western regions.
Utah’s legal argument is that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to hold land indefinitely without a designated purpose, especially against the state’s objection. The state argues that the Supreme Court should declare this practice unconstitutional and order a transfer of the land back to Utah.
The lawsuit also claims that Congress has a duty to dispose of public lands, particularly those that do not serve a specific federal purpose. Utah asserts that the federal government’s refusal to do so restricts the state’s ability to generate revenue from the land, further aggravating its financial interests.
The Department of Justice has strongly countered these claims, asserting that the lawsuit faces both legal and procedural challenges. In its filing, the government emphasizes that Utah’s argument fails to establish a constitutional violation and overlooks the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that federal law takes precedence over state law.
The federal government also rebuffs the notion that it is required to dispose of unappropriated lands, noting that while Congress has the authority to manage public lands, it is not legally obligated to do so. The government contends that Utah’s objections to federal land management are more appropriately directed toward Congress, rather than the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the Justice Department challenges Utah’s invocation of original jurisdiction, which would allow the case to bypass lower courts and proceed directly to the Supreme Court. To qualify for original jurisdiction, the case must involve a legal dispute between a state and the federal government, which, the brief argues, is not the case here.
This legal battle represents a broader clash over states’ rights, federal land management, and constitutional interpretations of land ownership. As Utah and the federal government spar in the courts, the outcome could have lasting implications for public land policy across the United States.
READ MORE: