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.