Utah is no longer asking the U.S. Supreme Court to order the United States to “dispose” of 18.5 million acres of public land in the Beehive State, its latest court pleading shows.
In an 18-page Dec. 4 filing, Utah says its original complaint does not seek a sell-off or ownership transfer of the federal property. That complaint to the Supreme Court in August asked justices to “[o]rder the United States to begin the process of disposing of its unappropriated federal lands within Utah” — 18.5 million acres of land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management.
Utah filed more papers Dec. 4 that appear to back off from that demand for divesture.
“Utah is not ‘ask[ing] this Court to exercise … the power to dispose of public lands,’” Utah’s latest filing states. “Nor does Utah seek an order ‘direct[ing] Congress to enact new statutes,’” requiring the United States to shed its holdings, Utah’s latest document reads.
“It should come as no surprise if and when the new Republican administration elects to adopt a position supporting Utah’s lawsuit before the Supreme Court or, if nothing else, a position that does not meaningfully oppose it.”
Ryan Semerad
Instead, Utah’s lawyers contend, the state only wants the justices to declare unconstitutional the United States’ ownership of the property managed by the BLM. What the federal government should do after that, Utah’s latest filing doesn’t say.
The difference between the two filings marks a “seismic change” in Utah’s position, said Ryan Semerad, a Casper attorney practiced in public land issues. He has analyzed the Utah complaint in a 40-page paper submitted for publication to the Wyoming Law Review. He also successfully represented four hunters in an ongoing public access corner-crossing case in Carbon County.
Compared to Utah’s initial complaint, the latest filing is “a much softer request … a much weaker ask than the headlines have made out,” Semerad wrote in an email. “In the end, Utah just wants the Court to tell Congress that it must give the Secretary of the Interior more leeway to sell off or transfer lands, eventually.”
Wyoming siding with Utah
Critics have labeled Utah’s original complaint a land grab and fear it could set a precedent that challenges the monumental notion that vast swaths of the wide-open West — about 12% of the country — are permanently owned by and accessible to all Americans. Transferring or selling the land to states would lead to privatization of the property and the exclusion of the public from some 247 million acres nationwide — an area larger than West Virginia — critics say.
At the core of Utah’s case lie “unappropriated” federal lands — property that the government has not formally reserved to support a federal power enumerated in the Constitution. Appropriated lands include things like military bases, forts, national parks and national conservation areas, among other things.
Congress addressed the unappropriated lands through the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act, legislation that undergirds the Bureau of Land Management. Congress tasked the agency with overseeing 247 million mostly Western acres under a multiple-use, sustained-yield mission.
Utah claimed that federal ownership robbed the state of all sorts of riches. Many Wyoming politicians sympathize with Utah.
Gov. Mark Gordon, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman and a stable of state legislators have filed briefs supporting Utah, underscoring the Equality State’s hope that it, too, might acquire and profit from federal property that makes up about 48% of Wyoming. Hageman likened federal ownership to wartime occupation.
Utah in August asked the Supreme Court “for an order that would require the United States to begin the process of complying with its constitutional obligation to dispose of those [18.5 million acres of BLM] lands.”
Now, “Utah instead targets the validity of existing statutes — namely, the portions of [the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act] that announce and implement an indefinite land-retention policy,” the state’s latest legal papers read.
Semerad explained the difference in an email. “That’s a much softer request (please let [the Department of the Interior] have more freedom to get rid of lands sometime) compared to the harder ask (sell or give us the land now!),” he wrote.
Yellowstone too?
Wyoming’s foray into the melee includes three briefs supporting Utah: one filed by the governor, one signed onto by Hageman and one filed by 26 Wyoming legislators. Ten of those lawmakers are senators, 16 are representatives and all are Republicans.
Those 26 go beyond Utah’s original demands, saying they haven’t surrendered potential claims to “all former federal territorial lands … now held by the United States … [including] parks, monuments, wilderness, etc.”
It is conventional for the governor and his or her attorney general to represent a state in such tiffs, but in this case the lawmakers chose to file their own brief supporting Utah. Now many of those want their own $75 million fund to sue the federal government independent of gubernatorial action.
Members of the Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee earlier this year unanimously (one excused) backed a bill calling for a $75 million anti-fed legal war chest for the Legislature’s Management Council. That council is the leadership group overseeing Wyoming House and Senate activities.
To support the council’s independent legal endeavors, the Joint Ag committee sponsored the $75 million Senate File 41 — Federal acts-legal actions authorized in October. The bill recognizes “the jurisdiction of the Wyoming legislature over land within the boundaries of the state of Wyoming.”
The measure, which is set to be considered when the legislative session begins next month, says that Wyoming was admitted to the union on an “equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever.” That language proposes that Western states should resemble the original 13 states where the federal government owns little land.
The Legislature’s Management Council could spend the $75 million to “protect the rights, powers and interests of the legislature or assure proper interpretation or administration of the constitution, statutes, or administrative rules,” the bill states.
All 15 members of the Joint Ag Committee are Republicans. All six of the committee’s senators — Tim French (R-Powell), Larry Hicks (R-Baggs), Bob Ide (R-Casper), John Kolb (R-Rock Springs), Dan Laursen (R-Powell) and Cheri Steinmetz (R- Lingle) — signed the brief to the Supreme Court backing Utah.
Three of the nine Joint Ag Committee representatives — Bill Allemand (R-Midwest), Allen Slagle (R-Newcastle), and John Winter (R-Thermopolis) — also signed the legislators’ brief supporting Utah.
Uphill battle?
Regardless of how Utah frames its plea or whether the Supreme Court will hear it, Utah is going against the grain, Semerad says.
Utah must establish that a court can actually consider its claim, Semerad wrote. Put another way, courts have limited jurisdiction: Some questions and debates are the province of political branches of government or involve no rights the judiciary can enforce.
“Courts are not intuitionally suited to compelling the government to take action,” Semerad said in an interview. Rather, they decide “whether a regulation is in bounds or out of bounds,” he said.
“They can do error corrections,” he continued. But a state can’t go to court, for example, and say “make Congress legalize marijuana. That’s a policy decision.”
There’s a library of law addressing other aspects of the Utah complaint, including the United States’ powers over federal lands, whether Congress can or must divest itself of property and whether Utah’s suit “improperly invades upon constitutional authority assigned to Congress alone,” according to the attorney.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept Utah’s complaint, which is employing a fast-track approach, essentially bypassing lower courts by claiming an emergency. “They’re trying to start the race at the end,” Semerad said.
Many questions loom. Utah doesn’t say how the United States should divest itself of the federal property or what should happen if and when the government decides to shed its holdings. Only Congress can dispose of the land, experts say, and American citizens might want to be fairly paid for property and access they are losing. Could states, critics wonder, afford to buy the BLM tracts and do they have the resources to manage them?
Meantime, it’s uncertain how the Department of Justice, which has opposed the Utah claim, will handle the case under a new administration.
“It should come as no surprise if and when the new Republican administration elects to adopt a position supporting Utah’s lawsuit before the Supreme Court or, if nothing else, a position that does not meaningfully oppose it,” he wrote.
Notably absent are the concerns for native American land and water rights. The BLM has consistently violated consultation laws with tribes affected by their decision making. A great portion of that land belongs to displaced indians who are recovering as a society from near genocide and don’t have the social capacity to co-steward the process. Perhaps Utah discovered this and that’s why they rescinded. We have to wIat for the indians to have the organizational capacity to land manage.
Utah’s reversal is a red herring. With the new 2025 administration coming in, the next move will be to go directly to the GOP controlled House and Senate that will allow the States to steal these lands. The welfare cowboy, who’s used to the joke of a $1.35 cow/calf per month “lease” will be paying more, a LOT more if the State takes over. And….what if the States sell off these lands? The grazing rates would go private and $20 per cow-calf is not out of the realm
I was shocked (and disturbed) to recently learn the largest private landowner in Wyoming is none other than Stan Kroenke. If you don’t know who he is do some research. No doubt he and his ilk would welcome the transfer of BLM land to the parochial interests in control of the state legislatures.
This is very disappointing but not surprising considering the state of the Supreme Courts corruption and the re-eletion of a corrupt man to hold the highest office in this country. If the folks in Utah and Wyoming think this is good for them just wait till your water is in drinkable and your once beautiful states start looking like the moon.
The money your state makes now in tourism will be gone and so will your way of life. Be careful what you all ask for.
This crass revival of James Watt’s Sagebrush Rebellion is akin to Southern states during Jim Crow. Some Western States are trying to presume they have all this unwarranted power, undermining a federal government that gave them statehood in first place, when they’ve been acting like backwards territories all along. You might note that the Interior Department chapter of Trump’s Project 2025 was authored by Wm. Perry Pendley, Watt’s protege and head of the anti-federal Mountain States Legal Foundation. These public lands belong to the entire American public, not for the enrichment and self-interest of a gaggle of reactionary Jethros who want to abrogate treaties with the tribes and privatize National parks and Forests.
Utah’s effort here is a very thinly veiled, effort to just expand the influence, holdings, and power of the LDS Organization in that state. This organization is one of the largest private landowners in the USA, and definitely feel that it is their “god given” right to control all the federally administered lands in that State. This has been consistent throughout Utah’s history, so this lawsuit is predictable. Wyoming’s support of this effort is due to dissatisfaction with federal administration of Federal Lands by several politically powerful groups (Wyoming Stockgrowers, Wyoming Petroleum Association, and a few wealthy oligarchs), also by the newly elected, Freedom Caucus Legislators that hate everything “government”. Their reasons for joining this effort is in opposition to “regulatory overreach” and undo influence from Washington DC. The advocates of transfer of federal lands to State control have not demonstrated any funding sources or functional capacity or capability to administer these lands. I would also submit, that no serious economic activity or development has been stopped by the BLM. If there are favorable, and profitable economics, development has gone forward, unabated. Look at the Pinedale Anticline/Jonah Field, even with the dramatic impacts to wildlife and air quality, the drilling and development rarely slows, except when the economics are tight. I have talked to the Governor and Rep. Hageman, who have indicated that they are not advocating for sale or disposal of these lands into the private sector. They just want State administration. The Freedom Caucus on the other hand, just wants to “burn it down”, they want it all gone into the private sector. They simply have no appreciation for the importance of the Tourism and Recreation Industry to Wyoming’s economy. They also don’t recognize and appreciate that access to public lands for recreation is a major reason that many Wyomingites choose to live here. I’m afraid that with the incoming Federal Administration and the current make up of SOCTUS, that Utah’s lawsuit may gain traction. There is a lot on the line here, please get involved and tell the politicians to leave Federal Lands alone.
Ranchers that hold grazing rights on public lands need to think about this potential change from federal to state holding. If some Saudi billionaire makes an offer on parcels of land currently deemed public and the World Famous Freedom Caucus likes the money, grazing privileges may evaporate. We have witnessed recently the unintended consequences of legislation concerning freedom to make healthcare decisions bite the prolifers in the rear end. Failure to consider the fact that billionaires can influence government is vividly illustrated by the very wealthy shadow president that helped buy the most recent election.
Our elected officials aren’t acting in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE. Utah forfeited the right to claim GLO administered lands at statehood. Other than the extremely wealthy or FLDS members, I don’t know any members of the public who’d possibly be on board with this, unless they have been duped by Utah’s PR campaign. Listen up people! State management by Utah DWR or WYGF sounds great, but that is not the case. They want the SLB’s to sell these lands off (Which isn’t even the process for disposal in FLPMA). Sigh, idiots.
Western States are being treated as quasi territories.
The Constitution is very clear where the federal government can own land and for what specific purpose it can be used.
There’s a reason why Wyoming only has 1 US House member. Representation is equal in the US Senate; however, Western States are underrepresented in the US House, with the exception of California. This has ramifications and definitely puts Western States at a disadvantage. This is the even footing doctrine referenced in the article.
With the recent actions of the Rock Springs BLM District Office, it should cause everyone pause. Those lands have always been managed for multiple use. If they can now decide what uses they will or will NOT allow becomes problematic. They are accountable to Congress and you can see how well it’s functioning currently. It has been this way for a long time.
State ownership would be more accountable to Wyoming citizens. Our 1 House member is one of 435 members comprising the US House. I would much rather deal with the Wyoming Legislature, as a citizen of Wyoming, than try to persuade 435 people that we want something resolved inside the state.
Maybe you should read the 150,000 public comments. 92% in favor of the BLM rule. By the way, “BLM” land is public land- all U.S. public.
Western states were in fact true territories prior to achieving State Hood. Becoming a State for most (Nevada first, because of its gold and silver) was contingent on giving up any claim to unappropriated federal land.
As far as the statement “State ownership would be more accountable to Wyoming citizens.”; while that may be true for the big corporations and the rich people, the average Wyoming working class will be denied access.
Wyoming needs to stop wasting money on frivolous lawsuits.
Wyoming’s one House Representative represents 577,719 people. California’s representatives each represent 761,091. Poor Idaho has 1 per 920,689. Point is Wyoming has a better ratio than most states period. Like #5 best. It is not underrepresented.
Personally, I don’t want my land sold to some politician’s friend. I’d rather have more oversight than less.
Looking at the “quality” of our single house rep, we should be thankful for just having one!
Great article. I am scared for citizens of Utah and WY — this movement to put this land back under state control to BE SOLD, DEVELOPED OR EXPLOITED FOR MINERALS to rich people will lock people out of accessing this beautiful lands. Having the federal gov manage it makes sure we the people will have access and not just the billionaire club. Stay alert because this will come back up for grabbing this land to put it in the hands of the rich people.
I find this topic very concerning. What does this mean for our National parks. If the states get control will the land be sliced and diced and then sold off to developers? Is greed the root of this complaint? I’ve had the pleasure of visiting several National parks. One of the main purposes for declaring our national parks was to preserve the natural wonder and beauty of these places.
Some good news. Stay vigilant. Now you know what your goofball politicians would do if they could. Try to vote for YOUR benefit, not theirs.
Gov. Mark Gordon, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman and a stable of state legislators have filed briefs supporting Utah, underscoring the Equality State’s hope that it, too, might acquire and profit from federal property that makes up about 48% of Wyoming. Hageman likened federal ownership to wartime occupation. Reading this paragraph tells me everything! PROFIT. This federal property would be sold off to the highest bidder. Think Millionaire/Billionaire. When you can’t hunt/fish/hike/snow machine where you used to because some one with big pockets has bought it and denies you access it will be too late to complain about it because it will be a done deal. Hageman is laughable in her statement that she likened federal ownership to wartime occupation. If that was the case Native Americans would have a case against the United States.
I suspect Utah’s position changed due to the election. The case has no merit and certiorari should be denied.
From the 1800s the lands in question have been populated by religious extremists. This is no different, albeit on a grander scale than the recent land grab in Mancos CO by ex FDLS members who claim obscure rights based on the Louisiana Purchase, the Treat of Hidalgo, etc. The extreme religious right interprets the law and bends history to their own ends. Whether it’s the United States of America, or THE United States of America, this is a secular country and a secular government and UT and WY need to put it to rest. Or succeed, be their own country, be cut off from commerce and crash and burn.
beware the Robber Barons!