Utah is no longer asking the U.S. Supreme Court to order the United States to “dispose” of 18.5 million acres of public land in the Beehive State, its latest court pleading shows. In an 18-page Dec. 4 filing, Utah says its original complaint does not seek a sell-off or ownership transfer of the federal property. That complaint to the Supreme Court in August asked justices to “[o]rder the United States to begin the process of disposing of its unappropriated federal lands within Utah” — 18.5 million acres of land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. Utah filed more papers Dec. 4 that appear to back off from that demand for divesture. “Utah is not ‘ask[ing] this Court to exercise … the power to dispose of public lands,’” Utah’s latest filing states. “Nor does Utah seek an order ‘direct[ing] Congress to enact new statutes,’” requiring the United States to shed its holdings, Utah’s latest document reads. “It should come as no surprise if and when the new Republican administration elects to adopt a position supporting Utah’s lawsuit before the Supreme Court or, if nothing else, a position that does not meaningfully oppose it.” Ryan Semerad Instead, Utah’s lawyers contend, the state only wants the justices to declare unconstitutional the United States’ ownership of the property managed by the BLM. What the federal government should do after that, Utah’s latest filing doesn’t say. The difference between the two filings marks a “seismic change” in Utah’s position, said Ryan Semerad, a Casper attorney practiced in public land issues. He has analyzed the Utah complaint in a 40-page paper submitted for publication to the Wyoming Law Review. He also successfully represented four hunters in an ongoing public access corner-crossing case in Carbon County. Compared to Utah’s initial complaint, the latest filing is “a much softer request … a much weaker ask than the headlines have made out,” Semerad wrote in an email. “In the end, Utah just wants the Court to tell Congress that it must give the Secretary of the Interior more leeway to sell off or transfer lands, eventually.” Wyoming siding with Utah Critics have labeled Utah’s original complaint a land grab and fear it could set a precedent that challenges the monumental notion that vast swaths of the wide-open West — about 12% of the country — are permanently owned by and accessible to all Americans. Transferring or selling the land to states would lead to privatization of the property and the exclusion of the public from some 247 million acres nationwide — an area larger than West Virginia — critics say. At the core of Utah’s case lie “unappropriated” federal lands — property that the government has not formally reserved to support a federal power enumerated in the Constitution. Appropriated lands include things like military bases, forts, national parks and national conservation areas, among other things. Congress addressed the unappropriated lands through the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act, legislation that undergirds the Bureau of Land Management. Congress tasked the agency with overseeing 247 million mostly Western acres under a multiple-use, sustained-yield mission. A hiker on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, part of which crosses areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management. More than 1.8 million westerners hunt, and the overwhelming majority of that hunting occurs on national forests and BLM rangelands. (BLM photo) Utah claimed that federal ownership robbed the state of all sorts of riches. Many Wyoming politicians sympathize with Utah. Gov. Mark Gordon, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman and a stable of state legislators have filed briefs supporting Utah, underscoring the Equality State’s hope that it, too, might acquire and profit from federal property that makes up about 48% of Wyoming. Hageman likened federal ownership to wartime occupation. Utah in August asked the Supreme Court “for an order that would require the United States to begin the process of complying with its constitutional obligation to dispose of those [18.5 million acres of BLM] lands.” Now, “Utah instead targets the validity of existing statutes — namely, the portions of [the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act] that announce and implement an indefinite land-retention policy,” the state’s latest legal papers read. Semerad explained the difference in an email. “That’s a much softer request (please let [the Department of the Interior] have more freedom to get rid of lands sometime) compared to the harder ask (sell or give us the land now!),” he wrote. Yellowstone too? Wyoming’s foray into the melee includes three briefs supporting Utah: one filed by the governor, one signed onto by Hageman and one filed by 26 Wyoming legislators. Ten of those lawmakers are senators, 16 are representatives and all are Republicans. Those 26 go beyond Utah’s original demands, saying they haven’t surrendered potential claims to “all former federal territorial lands … now held by the United States … [including] parks, monuments, wilderness, etc.” It is conventional for the governor and his or her attorney general to represent a state in such tiffs, but in this case the lawmakers chose to file their own brief supporting Utah. Now many of those want their own $75 million fund to sue the federal government independent of gubernatorial action. Members of the Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee earlier this year unanimously (one excused) backed a bill calling for a $75 million anti-fed legal war chest for the Legislature’s Management Council. That council is the leadership group overseeing Wyoming House and Senate activities. To support the council’s independent legal endeavors, the Joint Ag committee sponsored the $75 million Senate File 41 — Federal acts-legal actions authorized in October. The bill recognizes “the jurisdiction of the Wyoming legislature over land within the boundaries of the state of Wyoming.” The measure, which is set to be considered when the legislative session begins next month, says that Wyoming was admitted to the union on an “equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever.” That language proposes that Western states should resemble the original 13 states where the federal government owns little land. Related Federal opposition to Utah ‘land-grab’ suit cites former Wyoming AG Wyoming backs Utah’s quest to seize BLM land, may want other fed property The Legislature’s Management Council could spend the $75 million to “protect the rights, powers and interests of the legislature or assure proper interpretation or administration of the constitution, statutes, or administrative rules,” the bill states. All 15 members of the Joint Ag Committee are Republicans. All six of the committee’s senators — Tim French (R-Powell), Larry Hicks (R-Baggs), Bob Ide (R-Casper), John Kolb (R-Rock Springs), Dan Laursen (R-Powell) and Cheri Steinmetz (R- Lingle) — signed the brief to the Supreme Court backing Utah. Three of the nine Joint Ag Committee representatives — Bill Allemand (R-Midwest), Allen Slagle (R-Newcastle), and John Winter (R-Thermopolis) — also signed the legislators’ brief supporting Utah. Uphill battle? Regardless of how Utah frames its plea or whether the Supreme Court will hear it, Utah is going against the grain, Semerad says. Utah must establish that a court can actually consider its claim, Semerad wrote. Put another way, courts have limited jurisdiction: Some questions and debates are the province of political branches of government or involve no rights the judiciary can enforce. “Courts are not intuitionally suited to compelling the government to take action,” Semerad said in an interview. Rather, they decide “whether a regulation is in bounds or out of bounds,” he said. “They can do error corrections,” he continued. But a state can’t go to court, for example, and say “make Congress legalize marijuana. That’s a policy decision.” There’s a library of law addressing other aspects of the Utah complaint, including the United States’ powers over federal lands, whether Congress can or must divest itself of property and whether Utah’s suit “improperly invades upon constitutional authority assigned to Congress alone,” according to the attorney. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept Utah’s complaint, which is employing a fast-track approach, essentially bypassing lower courts by claiming an emergency. “They’re trying to start the race at the end,” Semerad said. Many questions loom. Utah doesn’t say how the United States should divest itself of the federal property or what should happen if and when the government decides to shed its holdings. Only Congress can dispose of the land, experts say, and American citizens might want to be fairly paid for property and access they are losing. Could states, critics wonder, afford to buy the BLM tracts and do they have the resources to manage them? Meantime, it’s uncertain how the Department of Justice, which has opposed the Utah claim, will handle the case under a new administration. “It should come as no surprise if and when the new Republican administration elects to adopt a position supporting Utah’s lawsuit before the Supreme Court or, if nothing else, a position that does not meaningfully oppose it,” he wrote. The post Utah: We’re no longer asking Supreme Court to ‘dispose’ of public BLM land appeared first on WyoFile .