Supreme Court Rejects Utah Public Lands Heist Lawsuit

But it’s far from the end on the GOP’s war on nature

In a rare victory for good (breathable air, drinkable water, wild animals, places to go outdoors) versus evil (efforts by the oil and gas industries and the corrupt politicians they’ve bought to steal all that), the Supreme Court has refused to hear Utah’s challenge against the legality of BLM lands.

The suit, which had recently been joined by 12 other states, argued that all 18.5 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Utah should be turned over to the state government. There, limited budgets would have combined with for-profit and anti-public input mandates in the state’s constitution to force sales of that land for development, energy extraction, and mineral exploitation. The suit blatantly ignored, contradicted, or argued invalid legal precedent for federal management of public lands that dates back to the nation’s founding.

“Nothing in the text of the Constitution authorizes [public lands],” argued Utah’s Attorney General at one point. But Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the literal Constitution specifically authorizes it.

Victory feels good, right? It should, but this won’t be the end of the great public lands heist. Let’s look at some takeaways:

• Utah wasted at least $500,000 in taxpayer money over the last year paying a Virginia law firm to litigate the case.

• A further $2.6 million in taxpayer money was budgeted for a PR campaign around the case. It’s unclear how much of this money was spent.

• By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court is not only acknowledging that Utah’s premise was too thin to succeed, but also leaving the door open for future challenges to public lands. The side of good would have benefited from a ruling that established further legal precedent, and even with the court’s current far-right majority, the case may have proven an easy victory for us.

• This may be more evidence that the court’s rightwing majority is “case shopping,” in an effort to issue a sweeping ruling around public lands. In 2021, John Roberts wrote a letter indicating he’d like to do just that for the Antiquities Act (which allows Presidents to establish National Monuments).

• There’s a stated intention to sell off public lands in Project 2025, and Trump has recently been making noises about invalidating or rolling back protections established by Biden during the incoming administration’s first 100 days.

“We will continue to fight to keep public lands in public hands,” a group of Republican lawmakers lyingly stated in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. We’ll likely hear more from their allies in the great public lands heist in the coming months.

Top photo: BLM