Can Utah still pursue disposal of federally owned public lands? State says yes, still considering refiling a federal case

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The state of Utah faced off against the environmentalist group Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in state court Monday over the question of whether the state constitution prohibits Utah from pursuing its public lands case against the federal government that seeks to unlock millions of acres of public lands from federal control.

But lawyers for the state revealed during those oral arguments that it’s not certain yet that they’ll pursue the case in a lower federal court, even after spending millions in public funds via the “Stand for Our Land” campaign that in January, the Supreme Court declined to hear.

“I can tell you [a federal circuit court case] is under consideration, but it’s not guaranteed it will even be filed again,” Utah Assistant Attorney General Lance Sorenson said. “So as we stand here today, there is no federal lawsuit and there may never be one.”

After the hearing, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown clarified, “Utah is actively exploring every available avenue, including refiling our lawsuit, to challenge the assumption that the federal government can indefinitely hold onto public lands without designating them for a purpose.”

During oral arguments in state court on Monday, the debate centered around what happened when Utah became a state in 1896 and whether the language of Utah’s binding document with the federal government to become the 45th state was indeed binding.

The state constitution says the following:

The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.
Utah Constitution Article III

---

“The founders of the state agreed that federal lands would remain in federal ownership and that the state had no claim to those lands, and that guides and animates the decisions that should be happening now,” said Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Legal Director Steve Bloch.

But Sorensen argued there was some wiggle room in that provision. Meaning, the United States can sell public lands if it wants to. And the state court should not rule on a hypothetical federal case that has yet to be brought.

“Perhaps SUWA disagrees with Utah’s potential lawsuit and thinks it lacks merit,” said Sorenson. “Fair enough. But that is no reason to try to bring the issues raised in that hypothetical lawsuit in federal court through the back door into this court and have this court rule on the merits of those claims, which are federal claims.”

Jess Krannich, the lawyer representing SUWA sought to amend its initial lawsuit that the state’s move to force disposal was unconstitutional. They wanted Third District Court Judge Thaddeus May to halt any future lawsuits by Utah by interpreting what the state constitution says. The state was arguing to get SUWA’s case dismissed.

Did Utah ‘forever’ give up these lands?

Sorensen argued that there’s simply nothing in Utah’s constitution that precludes Utah’s elected officials from filing another federal suit.

Krannich pushed for the judge to “declare the rights of the parties, say that the state is bound by the agreement it made when it formally entered the union, that it would forever disclaim its interest in these lands.”

Sorensen countered, arguing that the state is not necessarily claiming the land for itself.

“We don’t know how the land would get disposed of. Maybe they would sell it to SUWA, right?” said Sorensen. “It’s all that’s speculative. And in the future. But the claim in the federal lawsuit was not to transfer title to the state of Utah.”

Krannich disagreed, arguing that the state was trying to downplay the significance of who would purchase the land. And after the ruling, Bloch appeared to double down on their assertion that the lands would be privatized.

“The deeply misleading nature of Utah’s “Stand for Our Land” campaign was laid bare this morning in court when the state conceded that the goal of its litigation is to force the sale of millions of acres of public lands into private ownership,” said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “Utah politicians have been spending millions of taxpayer dollars to intentionally confuse the public about the true, wildly unpopular goal of its land grab campaign: to radically reimagine the American West as a place devoid of public lands, but filled with fences and no trespassing signs. SUWA will continue to challenge these efforts and defend Utah’s widest public lands.”

The judge made no decision today. He has 60 days to issue a ruling.