Wyoming has joined a coalition led by Utah seeking to transfer ownership of US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land from the federal government to individual states, Gillette News Record reorts.
Proponents argue that state control would enable local development, benefiting economies and attracting residents. Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, and the Arizona Legislature filed a supportive amicus brief with the US Supreme Court, supporting Utah’s case for BLM land control, which Utah claims would place it on an equal footing with other states.
Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon announced the state’s support, aligning with Wyoming’s US Rep. Harriet Hageman and 26 state legislators, who filed separate briefs backing the challenge. If the Supreme Court accepts Utah’s case, Wyoming lawmakers suggest the possibility of extending claims to include other federal lands, such as national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas.
Utah argues that federal holdings of BLM land deprive it of “fundamental sovereign powers” and control over a substantial part of its territory, classifying BLM land as “unappropriated” and thus, they contend, rightfully the property of states. Wyoming’s brief supports this assertion, focusing on what it describes as economic harm and curtailed state sovereignty caused by federal ownership of BLM land. A favorable Supreme Court ruling, Wyoming officials claim, would “restore the proper balance of federalism,” enabling western states to develop the land and invest generated revenue locally.
“Wyoming believes it is essential for the states to be recognized as the primary authority when it comes to unappropriated lands within our borders,” Gov. Gordon said in a statement Thursday.
In Wyoming, BLM oversees approximately 28% of the state’s land, much of it classified as “unappropriated.” Supporters of the transfer say state ownership would encourage economic growth through resource development, adding jobs and billions in economic activity.
Conservation groups and other opponents view the case as a direct challenge to federal control over public lands, with potentially far-reaching consequences for national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. Jocelyn Torres of the Conservation Lands Foundation called the lawsuit “a blatant power-grab” aimed at undermining public access to federally owned lands.
The US Constitution and federal statutes have long established federal authority over public lands, and western states like Wyoming disclaimed rights to these lands in their constitutions at statehood. Additionally, Congress granted public land to western states to support local institutions, such as schools, but reserved ownership of vast areas for federal management. The Conservation Lands Foundation points to these legal precedents, arguing that only Congress can reassign or dispose of federal lands.
A ruling in favor of Utah and its allies could reshape land management practices across western states, expanding local control over land use, resource development, and associated revenues. Proponents argue this would provide states a “fair chance” to leverage their lands for local benefit.
Critics, however, warn that state ownership could lead to the privatization or development of lands currently designated for public and conservation use. The federal government has until Nov. 21 to respond to Utah’s filing, which could determine whether the Supreme Court will hear the case.
As Wyoming legislators and federal delegates join the legal effort, they underscore the perceived economic and sovereignty benefits, with some even suggesting the need to reclaim all former federal territorial lands. Meanwhile, Rep. Hageman’s brief stresses that federal land control imposes restrictions comparable to an “invasion,” highlighting the urgency for the Supreme Court to address the issue.
