- A coalition of western states supports Utah in a Supreme Court case challenging federal ownership of unappropriated land within state boundaries.
- Western states argue that federal land control infringes on their sovereignty and impedes local land management.
- States claim that federal ownership siphons potential revenue and limits states’ ability to tax or develop the land for local benefit.
- Federal payments to compensate for untaxed land fall short, affecting rural county budgets for essential services.
- The case underscores a larger debate on federalism and state sovereignty over natural resources.
October 28, 2024 — The Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case, State of Utah v. United States of America, that could reshape the balance of land management power between the federal government and western states. Utah argues that federal ownership of vast, unappropriated lands within state borders undermines state sovereignty and costs the state billions in lost revenue.
Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, and the Arizona legislature filed an amicus brief
last week supporting Utah’s arguments. A separate amicus brief was also filed by U.S. Senators Mike Lee, Mitt Romney, and other members of Congress in support of Utah, who concluded that “The Court lacks discretion to deny Utah an opportunity to litigate the issues presented in its proposed complaint in this Court. But even if the Court had such discretion, the Court’s usual considerations for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction are amply satisfied. The motion for leave to file the bill of complaint should be granted. This legal challenge asks the Court to compel the federal government to relinquish ownership of these lands, arguing that local land use should fall under state, not federal, jurisdiction.”
The following is a summary of issues raised in the states’ amicus brief.
The Issue at Stake: Local Control Versus Federal Oversight.
The federal government owns more than half of the land in western states like Utah and Idaho, much of which is classified as “unappropriated” — land not designated for specific federal use. The brief argues this undermines the federalist principle that states should manage their lands and resources. The amici, or “friends of the court,” point out that federal land use policies are often out of sync with local needs and rely heavily on a “distant bureaucracy” for decisions about land use that would typically be managed by state or local authorities.
The brief underscores how federal oversight has hindered local projects and economic opportunities. Idaho’s experience with the proposed Lava Ridge wind farm exemplifies this issue: while the project would generate power mainly for California, Idaho would bear the brunt of environmental and economic impacts, from damaged roads to water shortages, without meaningful input or benefits to its residents.
Economic Impacts: The Revenue Drain.
For western states, federal control translates into significant financial losses. Without control over land that would generate revenue through activities like mineral extraction or timber sales, states miss out on billions in potential earnings. The federal government attempts to offset this loss through the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, which compensates states for the inability to tax federal lands. However, PILT payments fall far short of what states could earn independently. A study cited in the brief reveals that Idaho’s counties could collect nine times more revenue if allowed to tax federal lands directly.
A Threat to Local Autonomy.
Beyond financial losses, the case centers on the principle of state autonomy. Federal rules govern land management, leaving states with limited power to enforce local laws or make land-use decisions. Idaho’s forests, for example, often suffer from insufficient federal maintenance, contributing to a higher risk of wildfires. As Idaho and other amici states argue, the federal government’s inconsistent approach to land management leaves local governments grappling with the economic and environmental fallout.
The Path Forward: Court Intervention Needed.
The amici argue that the Supreme Court’s intervention is critical, emphasizing that the present situation leaves western states at a disadvantage compared to eastern states, which control nearly all their land. They contend that states should be treated as equal sovereigns under the Constitution, with the authority to manage lands within their boundaries when no federal purpose is served. “Western states are not second-class sovereigns,” the brief asserts, urging the Court to restore state control over unappropriated lands and reinforce the foundational principles of federalism.
This case, with its focus on balancing federal and state powers, may set a precedent that impacts land management policies across the U.S. The precedent may also affect federal water rights claims across the western states.
Leave a Reply