Supreme Court Rules Utah Doesn’t Have a Right to Its Own Land

[Elderberry]

The Post & Email by Kathleen Marquardt, American Policy Center 3/17/2025

In 2013, Utah submitted its Transfer of Public Lands Act to the federal government, calling on it “to fulfill its pledge under the state’s Enabling Act to dispose of most federal lands in the state, some of which would be placed back to the state.

Eleven years later, in January of this year, the Supreme Court refused Utah’s filing to bring 18.5 million acres of its land and its resources under state control. This is unappropriated land – that is, land that is not designated as national monuments, national ports, or land held for military bases or held in trust for Indian reservations. The decision came in a brief order with no explanation of its reasoning.

This is about land and ownership. Should the federal government control our land or should we the People and our states?

Western states are handicapped vis a vis land ownership. The federal government owns over 46% of the land area in the 11 contiguous Western states, while it owns only 4.2% of the land area in the eastern state. About 70% of Utah’s total land area is under federal control. But this Act is about just 1/3 of the land in Utah, so the federal government would still control a good bit. The federal government controls nearly 70% of land in Utah, that is about 2/3 of the land in Utah.

Yet, on January 14th, the Supreme Court refused to let Utah file a seeking to bring 18.5 million acres of its land – which comprises only half of Utah’s land and its resources under state control. That doesn’t seem to be too much to ask.

The federal government manages about 640 million acres (2.6 million km2) of land in the United States, which is about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres. Most of that land is in the Western states that is 46.4% of the land area in the 11 contiguous Western states.

The case, State of Utah v. United States, brings into question 18.5 million acres of what the state is calling “unappropriated” lands — essentially lands Congress hasn’t set aside for a specific purpose — that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management across Utah.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/03/17/supreme-court-rules-utah-doesnt-have-a-right-to-its-own-land/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am keen on reducing federal lands into state-owned lands.

Utah should have a right to purchase the federal land within its state boundaries.

It should not be given free by the federal government as it belongs to all the other states as well as Utah

[DefiantMassRINO]

Congress could always pass laws to give Federal lands to states.  I'm just saying.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Congress could always pass laws to give Federal lands to states.  I'm just saying.

My opinion is that federal lands within a state belong to all the states.  It is unfair for states with few federal lands to lose out on its share of the these lands if they become state lands, so the state should always have a right to own these federal lands within their boundaries, but must pay for them.

The way states entered the Union is important.  Some states like the eastern states were never territories and retained state lands, whereas others who were territories has only federal lands, no state lands prior to becoming a state.

One of the reasons these territories became states is due to the fact that the federal government retained its lands, which was an attraction to states to permit these territories becoming states.  In other words, there was value in these lands, and they were not state lands.

To simply transfer title to federal lands to states without compensation is decidedly unfair.

Some states like Texas were also never territories, so there are few federal lands existing there.

[DCPatriot]

Me thinks that somebody believes there are "Rare Earth Minerals" in Utah!   

[DefiantMassRINO]

Leaving unkempt Federal lands to burn in wildfires is not a productive use of resources.

My opinion is that federal lands within a state belong to all the states.  It is unfair for states with few federal lands to lose out on its share of the these lands if they become state lands, so the state should always have a right to own these federal lands within their boundaries, but must pay for them.

The way states entered the Union is important.  Some states like the eastern states were never territories and retained state lands, whereas others who were territories has only federal lands, no state lands prior to becoming a state.

One of the reasons these territories became states is due to the fact that the federal government retained its lands, which was an attraction to states to permit these territories becoming states.  In other words, there was value in these lands, and they were not state lands.

To simply transfer title to federal lands to states without compensation is decidedly unfair.

Some states like Texas were also never territories, so there are few federal lands existing there.

[roamer_1]

To simply transfer title to federal lands to states without compensation is decidedly unfair.

The federal government is prevented from owning lands (beyond military bases, government campuses, and etc) by the Constitution - Predating all the states in question.

So by the Constitution, the land cannot be owned federally. It is a jurisdictional territory until granted statehood, wherein jurisdiction should have, by rights, passed to the state in its formation.

[jafo2010]

The time has come for the federal government to have a comeuppance.

At my home near Fontana Lake in North Carolina, the federal government owns over 85% of the land in multiple counties.  And the counties struggle to find land to build their own facilities because the federal government owns all the land.  It is simply wrong.

I think legislation should be passed that restricts the federal government to no more than 49% of the land in any governing area, i.e. city, county, state, etc.  A very simple change that does not take any one state or community into consideration, it just limits the span of control of the federal government to something less than 50% in any geographic area.

[Bigun]

The federal government is prevented from owning lands (beyond military bases, government campuses, and etc) by the Constitution - Predating all the states in question.

So by the Constitution, the land cannot be owned federally. It is a jurisdictional territory until granted statehood, wherein jurisdiction should have, by rights, passed to the state in its formation.

I think it has been determined that any territory admitted to the union as a state has equal footing with all preexisting states. That means that all lands within the new state that are not occupied by military bases, federal courthouses, post offices, or other federal buildings are state property.

[libertybele]

Me thinks that somebody believes there are "Rare Earth Minerals" in Utah!   

Possibly. 

[Bigun]

Me thinks that somebody believes there are "Rare Earth Minerals" in Utah!   

Nope! They know for sure there are!

[roamer_1]

I think it has been determined that any territory admitted to the union as a state has equal footing with all preexisting states. That means that all lands within the new state that are not occupied by military bases, federal courthouses, post offices, or other federal buildings are state property.

That seems right to me.

But as I said before, I am torn on this issue.
If it weren't for the federal lands, I would have never walked these vast lands I have at my disposal.It would all be sewed up like back east, where them poor bastards have to barter to find 150 acres to hunt upon.

I can walk for days and days and never find a fence. Or a road. I don't know that the state would have held that land out of settlement, what with the drive for taxes and such.

So it's a thing. I hate the BLM as any western man does. I hate that it's all gated off and I can't even go get firewood... Can't take a four wheel drive, a quad, or a snow machine anywhere.
They lock up our timber and starve us with no sales in timber and mineral - Which ought to be ours by right.

But I love that I can walk for days and days - spend a month in the wilderness and see no one. You can't do that back east, or damn near anywhere else... Maybe Canada. Maybe Siberia.

[Fishrrman]

Sounds like the feds (and the Court) believe the "Mormon War" of 1857 is still on...

[roamer_1]

I bet none of you back east has experienced a multi-day horse ride with a mule train to go back in to a hunting camp. And that's just to get to the base camp. from there you may go out a day in any direction on hoof or on foot...

Or a dog sled supplying a camp like that... Or a snow machine hauling a train of polks. Take a boat a couple days up the river to fish camp and spend a week or two snagging salmon...

That stuff is part of my everyday... or was, most of my life. I don;t know if all that would have been preserved to give me that opportunity.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Leaving unkempt Federal lands to burn in wildfires is not a productive use of resources.

Solution: The state can purchase them.

Cannot figure out why that is not a solution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The federal government is prevented from owning lands (beyond military bases, government campuses, and etc) by the Constitution - Predating all the states in question.

So by the Constitution, the land cannot be owned federally. It is a jurisdictional territory until granted statehood, wherein jurisdiction should have, by rights, passed to the state in its formation.

Where is the source of this claim?

I cannot find it.

All territories that became states were comprised of federal lands, save what was in private possession.

[DCPatriot]

Sounds like the feds (and the Court) believe the "Mormon War" of 1857 is still on...

LOL!  Now I have to watch American Primeval again!

[roamer_1]

Where is the source of this claim?

I cannot find it.

All territories that became states were comprised of federal lands, save what was in private possession.

The Property Clause, the Enclave Clause, and the right to acquire and govern OUTSIDE of the states in the way of Territories... That is about all there is to it.

The salient point is that Territorial power is ceded when statehood is adopted. That power becomes the state, and I would argue, in all cases but the Western states, that's how it went. The states did not have to buy their lands from the federation. Ownership is part and parcel with the sovereignty of the state.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Property Clause, the Enclave Clause, and the right to acquire and govern OUTSIDE of the states in the way of Territories... That is about all there is to it.

The salient point is that Territorial power is ceded when statehood is adopted. That power becomes the state, and I would argue, in all cases but the Western states, that's how it went. The states did not have to buy their lands from the federation. Ownership is part and parcel with the sovereignty of the state.

I see your argument, but states that entered the Union had to adhere to the provisions under which the state was accepted.

In the case of Texas, for example, the US specifically agreed that lands belonging to Texas would remain in the hands of the state of Texas, not going to the federal government.

Other states that joined had no such provisions as the existing states, ie the federal govt, permitted that new state to join by the federal govt retaining those federal lands.

The sovereignty of a state specifically did not include all govt lands as that was not part of the agreement for statehood

Those lands are valuable. And the clauses you mentioned do not mean the states have a right of ownership.

I do suggest though, that states have a right to own federal lands within the state by compensating the other states(federal govt) for the loss of property.

[Smokin Joe]

My opinion is that federal lands within a state belong to all the states.  It is unfair for states with few federal lands to lose out on its share of the these lands if they become state lands, so the state should always have a right to own these federal lands within their boundaries, but must pay for them.

The way states entered the Union is important.  Some states like the eastern states were never territories and retained state lands, whereas others who were territories has only federal lands, no state lands prior to becoming a state.

One of the reasons these territories became states is due to the fact that the federal government retained its lands, which was an attraction to states to permit these territories becoming states.  In other words, there was value in these lands, and they were not state lands.

To simply transfer title to federal lands to states without compensation is decidedly unfair.

Some states like Texas were also never territories, so there are few federal lands existing there.

The first thirteen were sovereign states, little countries with their own governments, laws, constitutions, and created the Federal Government for the purpose of mutual defense, standardized weights and measures, a common currency, and to settle disputes between those States ("State" having a different meaning from its common domestic usage today in the US).

It seems other places are the first to say "you can't cut the brush" or "build this or that" or drill holes in the ground, but they do not live here. If it is within our State Borders, no it doesn't "belong to everyone" because 'everyone' will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of policies made out of ignorance, disdain, or apathy.

Of course, it is easy to leave out the part about taking the land from the people who lived there long before there was a Federal Government. Well, suppose the state decided it didn't want the federal lands. If we aren't in control, don't even print that on our map. Come get the damned things.

[Bigun]

When a territory becomes a state the new state has all the rights and obligations any other state does and land within its boundaries not specifically set aside for federal encampments is state land.

[roamer_1]

I see your argument, but states that entered the Union had to adhere to the provisions under which the state was accepted.

In the case of Texas, for example, the US specifically agreed that lands belonging to Texas would remain in the hands of the state of Texas, not going to the federal government.

Other states that joined had no such provisions as the existing states, ie the federal govt, permitted that new state to join by the federal govt retaining those federal lands.

The sovereignty of a state specifically did not include all govt lands as that was not part of the agreement for statehood

Those lands are valuable. And the clauses you mentioned do not mean the states have a right of ownership.

I do suggest though, that states have a right to own federal lands within the state by compensating the other states(federal govt) for the loss of property.

Then of course you run into a problem with equal protection under the law - Western states are held as vassal states by way of the vast control the fed holds over their lands - A condition and influence not imposed upon other states... Even now the influence of federal environmental laws hold us hostage.

[Kamaji]

Then of course you run into a problem with equal protection under the law - Western states are held as vassal states by way of the vast control the fed holds over their lands - A condition and influence not imposed upon other states... Even now the influence of federal environmental laws hold us hostage.

Huh?  Hardly.

[roamer_1]

Huh?  Hardly.

I have, within my lifetime, watched the utter destruction of our logging industry and salmon fisheries, both exactly attributed to federal influences. The same can be said for mining (though maybe only decimated). Every year, Montana suffers a quarter million acres of timber loss due to fire - Again, largely because of federal regulations refusing to allow logging of dangerous forests. or by the failure of the fed to keep up its end wrt road access and fire fighting after the fact.

Our whole economy here revolves around logging, ranching, and mining... or rather, used to.

[Kamaji]

I have, within my lifetime, watched the utter destruction of our logging industry and salmon fisheries, both exactly attributed to federal influences. The same can be said for mining (though maybe only decimated). Every year, Montana suffers a quarter million acres of timber loss due to fire - Again, largely because of federal regulations refusing to allow logging of dangerous forests. or by the failure of the fed to keep up its end wrt road access and fire fighting after the fact.

Our whole economy here revolves around logging, ranching, and mining... or rather, used to.

That’s as may be, but that isn’t an equal protection argument, that’s an argument over policy decisions.

[roamer_1]

That’s as may be, but that isn’t an equal protection argument, that’s an argument over policy decisions.

Other states don't have this burden - a burden entirely caused by federal ownership of what should be state lands - Were they state lands, the burden would be *gone*. Those hardships imposed upon us, but not on any of the Southern states, or the Northeastern states makes us a vassal, not a sovereign entity. That is not equal protection.

the federal government should not be allowed to assert territorial powers against western states, which is exactly what it is doing by way of this extravagant land ownership.

[Kamaji]

Other states don't have this burden - a burden entirely caused by federal ownership of what should be state lands - Were they state lands, the burden would be *gone*. Those hardships imposed upon us, but not on any of the Southern states, or the Northeastern states makes us a vassal, not a sovereign entity. That is not equal protection.

the federal government should not be allowed to assert territorial powers against western states, which is exactly what it is doing by way of this extravagant land ownership.

No, it doesn't make them vassal states, and throwing inflammatory rhetoric around like that doesn't help your case in the least.

These states knew the deal coming in when they were first admitted as states.  If it was such a bad deal, they shouldn't have agreed to it.  Having agreed to it, they and their citizens should at least have a scintilla of decency sufficient to honor their obligations.

[Smokin Joe]

No, it doesn't make them vassal states, and throwing inflammatory rhetoric around like that doesn't help your case in the least.

These states knew the deal coming in when they were first admitted as states.  If it was such a bad deal, they shouldn't have agreed to it.  Having agreed to it, they and their citizens should at least have a scintilla of decency sufficient to honor their obligations.

When the states out this way became States, (1889), the very idea of not tapping the natural resources available (Timber, grazing, gold, coal, copper, etc.) would have been repugnant enough that they would not have agreed to statehood.

That's a new thing, postdating statehood. The people who agreed to statehood were dealing with others eager to build this country, not put it under some bell jar and ogle it. Since then, the government, instead of encouraging harvesting those resources, has become the chief impediment to doing so. As a result, resources such as timber go up in smoke, and vast mineral wealth goes untapped, to the detriment of those who actually live here, lorded over by desk jockeys thousands of miles away who don't know bugger all about the land.

[Kamaji]

When the states out this way became States, (1889), the very idea of not tapping the natural resources available (Timber, grazing, gold, coal, copper, etc.) would have been repugnant enough that they would not have agreed to statehood.

That's a new thing, postdating statehood. The people who agreed to statehood were dealing with others eager to build this country, not put it under some bell jar and ogle it. Since then, the government, instead of encouraging harvesting those resources, has become the chief impediment to doing so. As a result, resources such as timber go up in smoke, and vast mineral wealth goes untapped, to the detriment of those who actually live here, lorded over by desk jockeys thousands of miles away who don't know bugger all about the land.

Too bad, so sad.  They made a bad bargain.  If they don’t have even enough honor to respect their own deals, then maybe they don’t deserve statehood in the first place.

[roamer_1]

No, it doesn't make them vassal states, and throwing inflammatory rhetoric around like that doesn't help your case in the least.

These states knew the deal coming in when they were first admitted as states.  If it was such a bad deal, they shouldn't have agreed to it.  Having agreed to it, they and their citizens should at least have a scintilla of decency sufficient to honor their obligations.

That's pure bullshit. There's plenty of record for the establishment of midwestern states, wherein the fed discharged its lands as they were populated. Those areas inevitably became settled and incorporated, the towns incorporating into counties, and those counties  under the jurisdiction of the state. That the west would expect much the same treatment goes without saying. The governorship didn't have the stones to manage vast tracts at their beginning - So the fed retained jurisdiction for the purpose of law and indian fighting. As the place settled, it became state.

Except the western states.

[Kamaji]

That's pure bullshit. There's plenty of record for the establishment of midwestern states, wherein the fed discharged its lands as they were populated. Those areas inevitably became settled and incorporated, the towns incorporating into counties, and those counties  under the jurisdiction of the state. That the west would expect much the same treatment goes without saying. The governorship didn't have the stones to manage vast tracts at their beginning - So the fed retained jurisdiction for the purpose of law and indian fighting. As the place settled, it became state.

Except the western states.

Pretty painful when your own ox is gored, huh. 


Those states were admitted with conditions that are constitutional.   Too bad, so sad that their descendants are having second thoughts.  Get together and get Congress to change it, or deal with it.

[roamer_1]

Pretty painful when your own ox is gored, huh. 


Those states were admitted with conditions that are constitutional.   Too bad, so sad that their descendants are having second thoughts.  Get together and get Congress to change it, or deal with it.

I'm alright with giving the fed the finger. Come and take it. FAFO

And I ain't alone in that.

[roamer_1]

And it's coming to a head, btw... Over water rights.

[Bigun]

I have learned from experience that arguing with certain posters is like trying to play chess with a pigeon.

[Kamaji]

I'm alright with giving the fed the finger. Come and take it. FAFO

And I ain't alone in that.

In other words, you have no honor.  Got it.

[Smokin Joe]

In other words, you have no honor.  Got it.

We didn't sign the deal, and it is the Feds who pulled crap that left My wife's people with barely a thousand of the ten million acres they were promised. Then talk about the Black Hills, which were to belong to the Sioux 'until the sun no longer rises in the east'... There was no 'opt out' clause if gold was discovered, and instead of controlling the settlers, the army went after the owners.., then tell me who is without honor?

Honor in dealing with the residents of the western states, native or white, has always been a matter of convenience for the Federal Government.

[Kamaji]

We didn't sign the deal, and it is the Feds who pulled crap that left My wife's people with barely a thousand of the ten million acres they were promised. Then talk about the Black Hills, which were to belong to the Sioux 'until the sun no longer rises in the east'... There was no 'opt out' clause if gold was discovered, and instead of controlling the settlers, the army went after the owners.., then tell me who is without honor?

Honor in dealing with the residents of the western states, native or white, has always been a matter of convenience for the Federal Government.

You don’t have to sign it.  If you’re a citizen of the state, you’re bound as such by the terms the state was allowed to actually become a state in the first place.  You inherited those terms and you’re as much bound by them as if you’d been there.  Honorable men would recognize that fact. 

[Smokin Joe]

You don’t have to sign it.  If you’re a citizen of the state, you’re bound as such by the terms the state was allowed to actually become a state in the first place.  You inherited those terms and you’re as much bound by them as if you’d been there.  Honorable men would recognize that fact.

Honorable men would not have selectively looted those same states, in violation of their agreements--agreements they wrote and then routinely violated. Do NOT presume to lecture us on Honor.

[Kamaji]

Honorable men would not have selectively looted those same states, in violation of their agreements--agreements they wrote and then routinely violated. Do NOT presume to lecture us on Honor.

Pretty easy to lecture someone on honor when he won’t abide by the agreements that made his state something other than federal territory in the first place.

Also pretty easy to lecture that just because “they” were dishonorable doesn’t justify your dishonor.


Quite honestly, even the title of this thread is misleading.  Utah would not be anything other than federal territory but for the federal governments decision to allow the formation of a new state.  Thus, Utah has no property inside or outside its borders other than what it was allowed to have when it became a state, so Utah does in fact have control over all the property that became Utah property; it’s not entitled to control what was never its property to begin with.

[Smokin Joe]

Pretty easy to lecture someone on honor when he won’t abide by the agreements that made his state something other than federal territory in the first place.

Also pretty easy to lecture that just because “they” were dishonorable doesn’t justify your dishonor.


Quite honestly, even the title of this thread is misleading.  Utah would not be anything other than federal territory but for the federal governments decision to allow the formation of a new state.  Thus, Utah has no property inside or outside its borders other than what it was allowed to have when it became a state, so Utah does in fact have control over all the property that became Utah property; it’s not entitled to control what was never its property to begin with.

Not one agreement has survived its becoming inconvenient for the Federal Government, the States be damned.
Not one treaty with the indigenous people, and any time the Feds want to virtue signal, they cut off another million acres or so from being harvested, either timber, minerals, or even oil, declare it a National Monument or wilderness area, and some cannot even be driven through.

No other part of the country, except Alaska is subject to such sweeping and capricious edicts. Justify that bullshit in your own mind, but it is the difference that makes for people out west as seeing the Federal Government not as a protector or provider, but a ravening pack of wolves come to eat out our substance.

Those lands removed from productivity become a drain on their respective States, patches of tinder, awaiting fires that are made more difficult to fight by policy enacted from thousands of miles away. Last year a little smoke in the East caused pearl clutching and the vapors, but here in North Dakota we annually get smoke so thick you can't see 1/4 mile through it, from parts of Western Montana and the Pacific Northwest burning. I guess things that people would not put up with in Eastern States are okay to dump on us. Two tiers, yes, vassal states, not equals. There is a long list of convenient 'justifications' for everything from planting a nuclear arsenal in the prairie and making us first strike targets to saying we can't cut that particular precious tree, but it is a burden we unilaterally bear, and one summarily overridden by political and pseudoscientific considerations when convenient for the more populated states. It's damned one sided. When we can dictate whether you can use water or cut a tree or dig a hole in the ground, we'll  talk about equality and agreements, and not until.

[libertybele]

I have learned from experience that arguing with certain posters is like trying to play chess with a pigeon.

 

[roamer_1]

In other words, you have no honor.  Got it.

No one is bound to a contract falsely presented, or under duress. Especially in perpetuity. I have a big fat finger for that one, and hell yes, I'll walk away. And I don't stand afar off from my brethren in that.

Shall I not hunt the king's land? Well, hell yes, I think I will.

As for the rest, @Smokin Joe said it already.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Then of course you run into a problem with equal protection under the law - Western states are held as vassal states by way of the vast control the fed holds over their lands - A condition and influence not imposed upon other states... Even now the influence of federal environmental laws hold us hostage.

Those states should have negotiated better, like Texas did with the US.

Even Texas gave up gobs of its territory to the feds in the form of parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming.

That was part of the deal in entering and one can expect other states were keen to permit Texas to enter and they now owned a share of that gift from Texas.  To take away those lands that was part of the negotiated entry price is expropriation of assets.

[roamer_1]

Those states should have negotiated better, like Texas did with the US.

Even Texas gave up gobs of its territory to the feds in the form of parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming.
That was part of the deal in entering and one can expect other states were keen to permit Texas to enter and they now owned a share of that gift from Texas.  To take away those lands that was part of the negotiated entry price is expropriation of assets.

An negotiation in bad faith, as already outlined - The normal method was for the fed to discharge their lands, which later became counties and towns as they settled - All under state jurisdiction.

As the badlands of the territory diminished, the state grew. There was no reason to believe the same would not happen in Wyoming, and Idaho, and Montana. When the biggest landholder in the state is the US government, you are indeed a vassal state, beholden to the whim.

[Texas Yellow Rose]

Federal Lands

[IsailedawayfromFR]

An negotiation in bad faith, as already outlined - The normal method was for the fed to discharge their lands, which later became counties and towns as they settled - All under state jurisdiction.

As the badlands of the territory diminished, the state grew. There was no reason to believe the same would not happen in Wyoming, and Idaho, and Montana. When the biggest landholder in the state is the US government, you are indeed a vassal state, beholden to the whim.

We saw no similar problems in Texas as our negotiations were honored.

I wonder what happened in these other states?

As I had said before, nothing prevents a state from buying federal lands within the state boundaries, so go do it as the right to purchase IMO should be a state right.

[roamer_1]

We saw no similar problems in Texas as our negotiations were honored.

I wonder what happened in these other states?

Texas was a republic when it joined. Montana and the rest were territories.
I think that likely left you with a better bargaining position. Admission as a state, whole cloth, is different from the easing that happens in a territory.

[roamer_1]

I wonder if the US government has to pay Montana property tax like I have to. 

[Smokin Joe]

I wonder if the US government has to pay Montana property tax like I have to. 

 

As the Wild Weasel patch says: YGBSM

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Texas was a republic when it joined. Montana and the rest were territories.
I think that likely left you with a better bargaining position. Admission as a state, whole cloth, is different from the easing that happens in a territory.

Yes, we were a country but gave up a hell of a lot of land that helped form 5 other states.

We paid up, just like others need to do