On December 18, 2024, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed a lawsuit in Utah’s Third District Court against Gov. Spencer Cox and Attorney General Reyes, alleging constitutional violations in their efforts to seize control of federal lands. This action highlights the ongoing legal battle between Utah and the federal government over the management of public lands, a dispute with far-reaching implications for the state and the nation.
The state’s latest lawsuit, filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 20, 2024, challenges the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) oversight of 18.5 million acres within Utah. While proponents argue this case represents a fight for state sovereignty, the legal, historical and economic foundations of Utah’s claims are fundamentally flawed.
Utah’s legal fight comes at a high cost to taxpayers. The state has already spent millions on litigation — money that could have addressed critical public needs, such as education, health care and infrastructure. This diversion of resources reflects a troubling prioritization of ideological disputes over the well-being of Utah’s citizens.
While proponents of the state’s lawsuit frame it as a necessary step toward greater state autonomy, the potential outcomes suggest otherwise. A state victory would entail enormous financial burdens, including the costs of managing vast public lands, building infrastructure and responding to emergencies such as wildfires and floods. Utah’s history of selling state-owned lands to private developers further underscores the risk that public access to these lands could be restricted.
The lawsuit’s reliance on historical claims of land ownership is tenuous at best. Advocates argue that Utah inherited rights to public lands from Mexico following the Mexican-American War. However, such claims ignore the clear language of the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, which granted statehood while affirming federal control over unappropriated lands.
The act states unequivocally that the people of Utah “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof.” This legal framework, consistent with the enabling acts of other states admitted during the same period, undermines Utah’s historical argument and renders its current claims dubious.
Additionally, the state’s legal strategy circumvents established judicial processes. By filing directly with the Supreme Court, Utah sidesteps lower court reviews, a maneuver that appears aimed at exploiting a perceived ideological tilt in the current court rather than engaging in substantive legal discourse.
Beyond legal deficiencies, Utah’s claims raise broader questions about the future of public land management in America. Federal oversight has long prioritized the preservation of natural resources and public access for all Americans. Shifting control to individual states risks creating a fragmented system that prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term conservation and equitable access.
If Utah succeeds, other states may follow suit, potentially unraveling decades of federal land management policy. Such a precedent could lead to inconsistent regulations, increased privatization and reduced public access, undermining the national interest in preserving these lands for future generations.
Utah’s assumption of federal lands would impose significant management responsibilities, including hiring specialized personnel, building and maintaining infrastructure, and developing resource management plans. These responsibilities would come at a steep cost, potentially forcing the state to lease or sell lands to private entities to cover expenses.
Moreover, Utah’s track record raises concerns about its commitment to conservation. The state has historically prioritized energy development over environmental protection, a trend that could intensify if it gains control of public lands. Such an approach would threaten wildlife habitats, recreational opportunities and the ecological health of these areas.
Utah’s legal battle reflects a broader trend of states challenging federal authority in the name of “states’ rights.” However, these efforts often come at the expense of pragmatic solutions to shared challenges. Rather than pursuing costly and divisive litigation, Utah should engage in constructive dialogue with the federal government to address its concerns.
Collaboration could lead to practical solutions that balance state interests with the need to preserve public lands for all Americans. For example, co-management agreements or tailored federal policies could provide Utah with greater input into land management decisions without undermining the broader principles of federal stewardship.
Utah’s lawsuit against the federal government is a misguided effort rooted in flawed legal claims and shortsighted priorities. The state’s actions not only risk undermining public land management nationwide, but also divert resources away from pressing public needs.
The residents of Utah — and all Americans — deserve better. Instead of clinging to divisive legal strategies, Utah should focus on collaboration and compromise, ensuring that its rich natural heritage is preserved for generations to come.
(Karen Crompton) Karen Crompton is a member of the Utah Citizens’ Counsel, an organization dedicated to improving public policy.
Karen Crompton is a member of the Utah Citizens’ Counsel, an organization dedicated to improving public policy.
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
