THE WIRE · UPDATED 11:07 AM MDT No story is too small.
NewsClinton

Utah's Case Against National Monuments Faces Historical and Legal Challenges

AI-written from public sources Written by Utah News AI and quality-checked before publishing.
Utah's Case Against National Monuments Faces Historical and Legal Challenges
Photo via Kate Groetzinger
President Donald Trump signed two proclamations on July 13 that reduced the acreage of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments by approximately 90 percent each. While Utah leaders argue the monuments were too large, historical legal precedents and court rulings have consistently upheld presidential discretion regarding monument size.

Key takeaways

  • President Trump's July 13 proclamations reduced Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by approximately 90 percent each.
  • Utah leaders argue the Antiquities Act does not allow for monuments of such large scale, but historical precedents suggest otherwise.
  • The Supreme Court has previously upheld large monument designations and recognized landscapes as protectable objects.
  • Polling shows a majority of Utah voters support the protection of both national monuments.
  • Legal scholars note that while the president can create monuments, the power to shrink or abolish them belongs to Congress.

Two proclamations signed by President Donald Trump on July 13 have significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. The cuts total roughly 3 million acres, with Bears Ears shrinking from 1.36 million acres to 121,000 acres, and Grand Staircase-Escalante falling from 1.87 million acres to 182,000 acres.

Utah's congressional delegation, governor, and legislative leaders have supported the reductions, asserting that the monuments were too large under the Antiquities Act. Attorney General Derek Brown stated in a press release that the act was not intended to lock up millions of acres with a single pen stroke, while Governor Spencer Cox framed the issue as a matter of proper stewardship.

The argument regarding monument size faces significant historical and legal challenges. The 1906 Antiquities Act was drafted by archaeologist Edgar Lee Hewett, whose original proposals included large landscapes like the Bluff District in San Juan County. Although early drafts of the Act contained acreage caps, these were removed before passage, leaving presidents with full discretion to determine the size necessary to protect historic or scientific objects.

Legal precedents have historically rejected claims that such monuments are too large. In 1920, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a miner's claim regarding the Grand Canyon monument. Additionally, courts have upheld much larger designations, such as President Jimmy Carter's Alaska monuments. John Ruple, a law professor at the University of Utah, told KUER that no court has ever disturbed a president's conclusion regarding the scale of these objects.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that entire landscapes and ecosystems can qualify as protectable objects. BYU archaeologist Jim Allison noted that cultural sites in the region must be viewed at a landscape scale to understand ancient settlement patterns.

Utah has previously challenged monument boundaries in court with unsuccessful results. In 2004, a federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by the Utah Association of Counties regarding Grand Staircase-Escalante, with Chief Judge Dee Benson finding that the president had met the legal requirements for designation.

A more recent legal battle involving President Joe Biden's 2021 restorations was sent back to district court in late June, though reporting from the Salt Lake Tribune suggests the current reductions may render that case moot.

Despite the recent cuts, polling indicates significant local opposition to the reductions. Data shows 74 percent of Utah voters support protecting Grand Staircase-Escalante and 71 percent support Bears Ears. Both monuments continue to receive support from Tribal nations and local coalitions, as conservation groups prepare for further legal action.

Article details

CategoryNews
CityClinton
ToneNeutral
SourceAI Generated