In a succinct 12-word decision, the US Supreme Court dismissed efforts by Utah, Wyoming, and other Western states to claim ownership and control of millions of acres of federally managed public land, Wyo File reports.
The ruling, delivered without comment, effectively ends an ambitious legal challenge that sought to redefine federal authority over these lands.
Utah spearheaded the effort, arguing that the federal government’s ownership of “unappropriated lands” is unconstitutional. These lands, managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), total 18.5 million acres and are held in trust for all Americans. Utah initially called for the federal government to “dispose” of this property but later revised its stance to assert that federal control is inherently unlawful.
Wyoming and other Western states filed briefs in support of Utah’s claims. Wyoming’s sole US Representative, Harriet Hageman, likened federal ownership to an occupation, suggesting it would equate to an invasion if Utah were an independent nation. The case was also backed by 26 Wyoming lawmakers and Governor Mark Gordon, who highlighted the unique challenges federal ownership imposes on Western states.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court denied the motion to file a bill of complaint. This brief decision dismissed hundreds of pages of legal filings, including rebuttals from the US government and the Ute Tribe, which opposed Utah’s claims.
The court’s ruling marks a setback for states seeking greater control over federal lands, a long-standing issue in the West where federal holdings account for vast swathes of the landscape.
The decision could have wide-ranging effects on federal land policy and the economic interests tied to these areas. Supporters of state control argue that federal management restricts development and local autonomy. Critics counter that federal stewardship protects public lands for conservation, recreation, and national interests.
