Utah, Idaho sought to turn federal land over to states. What did Supreme Court say?

Nicole Blanchard, The Idaho Statesman on Jan 13, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a lawsuit Utah filed against the United States that could have affected millions of acres of federal public land in Idaho by transferring property to state management.

Court officials offered no explanation for the denial, which is common for court orders.

Utah sued the federal government last August in a bid to have courts decide that the Bureau of Land Management could no longer control of large swaths of property across the West. Utah officials, including Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, said the campaign applied to so-called “unappropriated” federal lands without a designated recreation or wilderness area or other specific purpose.

The Utah lawsuit argued that the BLM was not managing land with the state’s best interests in mind. Officials said federal land managers restricted access, and stymied economic and recreational opportunities, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case in October alongside officials from Wyoming, Alaska and Arizona to back Utah’s position. Labrador and other Idaho Republicans have long been proponents of the state taking over management of some federal lands.

The federal government manages vast tracts of land in the West, including 61% of Idaho’s nearly 53 million acres. Almost 12 million acres in Idaho are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, primarily in the southern part of the state. Labrador’s amicus brief said about 9 million of those acres “are not reserved for any designated purpose.”

The brief echoed Utah claims that federal land managers are not listening to local input, citing the bureau's recent decision to approve the Lava Ridge wind farm near Minidoka in south-central Idaho. The controversial project was criticized by Idaho’s congressional delegation as well as local farmers, ranchers and supporters of the nearby Minidoka National Historic Site, a former World War II incarceration camp for Japanese Americans.

Labrador’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court’s decision and any planned next steps for federally managed land in Idaho.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Utah’s governor, attorney general and legislative leaders are looking to President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration to work with them on issues regarding public lands.

Environmental advocacy groups such as the Idaho Conservation League applauded the court’s decision to decline taking the case. Critics called Utah’s lawsuit a “land grab” and worried it would simply privatize property, not bolster management, as Utah’s government suggested.

In a statement, Idaho Conservation League Public Lands and Wildlife Director John Robison called the decision a victory, but urged the public to “stay vigilant.”

“This fight isn’t over,” Robison said in the news release. “Utah could refile in lower courts, and the case might eventually return to the Supreme Court.”

_____