HALT THE HEIST

On August 20, 2024, the State of Utah filed suit against the United States, claiming the federal government unconstitutionally holds more than 18.5 million unappropriated acres of public land in the state. Utah wants the Supreme Court to find that the federal government cannot hold lands in trust for the public and to force the federal government to sell or transfer public lands.

Yes, if the Supreme Court were to agree with Utah—that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own lands other than for military installations and the nation’s capital—the holding would not be limited to Utah. It would call into question the federal government’s ownership of public lands in all states.

In addition, it is likely that other states would also actively seek the transfer or sale of public lands within their borders. Other Western states have historically argued for the transfer of public land. Indeed, thirteen states have filed amicus briefs asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, including Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska and the Arizona legislature.

Yes, while the State of Utah states that their claims are limited to only “unappropriated” lands, it is not clear that a ruling in the state’s favor would be so narrow. The logical conclusion of many of Utah’s arguments-–flawed as they may be—suggest that federal ownership is limited only to those purposes specifically identified in the Constitution: forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, other needful buildings, and the nation’s capital.

If Utah wins, we risk losing treasured landscapes like national parks, national monuments, national forests and wildlife refuges.

In all likelihood, they’re ultimately sold off. While Utah calls for federally-owned lands to be transferred to the state, such an outcome is far from certain. Consistent with Utah’s own legal arguments, it’s possible that the Supreme Court will order the federal government to simply sell the lands to the highest bidder.

And even if the federal government transferred ownership to states, there is nothing stopping Utah from selling the lands to private parties. Indeed, Utah law already has a process in place for doing so and could always amend these laws to make the sale easier or even mandatory. As history tells us, states have regularly sold off their own public lands to cover budget shortfalls or when management becomes too expensive.

In all likelihood, Utah will sue the federal government in federal district court, making the same or similar arguments. Given the amicus briefs filed, it wouldn’t be surprising if Utah was joined by other states. The case would then work its way through the appellate process and, once again, the Supreme Court would have the opportunity to consider it.

Utah’s argument flies in the face of over 150 years of established legal precedent and historical practice. Indeed, the Supreme Court has regularly and repeatedly upheld Congress’s “absolute right” under the constitution to hold and manage lands for the benefit of the public. For generations, the federal government has properly and legally held, managed, protected and developed public lands for the benefit of the American people.

From 2014-2016, state legislators in Utah passed several pieces of legislation that called for the transfer of federal public lands to the state of Utah. The state of Utah has no authority to order such a transfer so these efforts were unsuccessful. However, these efforts were the first organized attempts by Utah to obtain ownership of federal lands and prompted two main reactions. First, the conservation community formed broad coalitions and vehemently opposed these efforts - led by the hunting/angling conservation community, as nearly three-fourths of all western hunters rely on public lands. Second, state legislators across the West mirrored Utah’s attempts and introduced dozens of pieces of legislation aimed at transferring federal managed lands to states or attempting to take several types of management authority from federal land managers. But this time is different. Utah is asking the Supreme Court to “dispose of” federal lands in its state, which we know means “sell.”

The concept of public lands is uniquely American and envied across the world. There’s something incredible about knowing we all have millions of acres to visit and explore, and there’s no question people love public lands. More than 500 million visitors flock to public lands each year. Our 640 million acres of public lands support myriad recreational and economic opportunities along with providing habitat for thousands of plant and animal species. Americans visit public lands with fervor and with them comes an economic engine. Outdoor recreation generates more than $1 trillion annually and supports more than 7.6 million jobs, with the vast majority relying directly upon public lands. Then there’s revenue derived from things like oil and gas, renewable energy development, grazing, and timber, and untold ecosystem services like providing drinking water for 60 million Americans and sequestering carbon that are critical to our nation's well-being. Our public lands are the goose that laid the golden egg and they are more popular than ever.

It is a difficult task to manage 640 millions acres across a multitude of landscapes. Doing so takes abundant funding, people power, coordination and expertise. Unfortunately, funding for managing public lands, which must be appropriated by Congress, has steadily declined over the past couple decades while visitorship has increased dramatically. This dynamic has led to landscapes that are in need of better management and more resources. It has also been used as fodder by politicians who criticize federal land managers, often the same politicians who work to cut budgets and staff of land management agencies. So yes, some public lands could be managed better but the answer lies not in selling or transferring these lands to states and away from the public domain, but in providing the necessary resources commensurate with the incredible demands being placed on our public lands, and the incredible services they provide.

The good news is, public lands belong to all of us. We all have a stake in their management and stewardship. We cannot take this job lightly. No longer can we just show up at our favorite spot and expect it to be as healthy, beautiful, and functional as ever. There are too many uses, demands, and stresses on these lands and not enough resources to properly care for them.

That’s where you come in. That’s right, you! Public land managers are required to gather public input on management plans, development projects, and any major actions on public lands. Not only should you pay attention and engage in management activities on your favorite tracts of public lands but you should also advocate for their well being. This means submitting comments and talking with local land managers on proposed actions. It means talking with your lawmakers about appropriately funding land management agencies, and it means enlisting others to do the same.

Help defend against this latest onerous attempt led by the state of Utah to remove public lands from the public domain all together. Please use the resources at nwf.org/halttheheist to engage and check back often for updated information. We need you to help Halt the Heist!