RESTORING STATE SOVEREIGNTY: MY CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR TRANSFERRING FEDERAL LANDS TO UTAH

Utah Senator Mike Lee said: "I continue to believe the federal government owns far too much land – land it is mismanaging and in many cases ruining for the next generation," Lee wrote. "Under Democratic presidents, massive swaths of the West are being locked away from the people who live there, with no meaningful recourse."

From our Utah Republican Party Platform Plank: UTAH STATE SOVEREIGNTY

The 13 original Sovereign States in Constitutional Convention created the Constitution of the United States of America and subsequently ratified that document creating a Federal Government and granting to that Government limited and enumerated powers.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines Federal powers as those enumerated in the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the States and to the People.

It remains the sacred responsibility of the States as creators of the Federal Government to keep the federal powers within the limits set by the Constitution.
We resolve that the Republican Party of the Great State of Utah and elected party members take any and all steps necessary to ensure that Federal powers exercised within the Great State of Utah not exceed those granted by the Constitution of the United States, and that those usurpations of State Sovereign Powers already violated by the Federal Government be corrected by the State Legislature and enforced by the Governor’s office thus protecting Utah State Sovereignty.

This is my Constitutional argument for Utah gaining greater control over our federal lands.

Introduction

The federal government owns nearly two-thirds of Utah’s landmass. This level of federal control is not only economically harmful and socially disruptive, but it also raises serious constitutional questions about state sovereignty, federalism, and the intent of the Founders.

While past court rulings have upheld expansive federal land ownership, it’s time to reexamine this issue in light of original constitutional principles and Utah’s unique enabling history.

The Equal Footing Doctrine

The U.S. Constitution requires that all new states be admitted on an “equal footing” with the original states.

Yet Utah, like many Western states, was admitted with the understanding that it would eventually gain control over its public lands—just as Eastern states did following statehood. The fact that the federal government owns less than 5% of land in most Eastern states, but over 60% in Utah, creates a glaring violation of this principle of equal sovereignty.

Legal Precedent to Challenge: The courts have narrowly defined the Equal Footing Doctrine in past land cases, but new evidence and modern constitutional scholarship could justify revisiting the issue, especially with a more federalist-oriented judiciary.

Promises Made in the Utah Enabling Act

Utah’s 1894 Enabling Act, which set the terms for Utah’s statehood, contains language suggesting that the federal government would eventually dispose of its lands, not hold them in perpetuity.

The Act says: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof…until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States.”

The clear expectation was eventual disposal of federal land, not indefinite federal ownership. Utah kept its side of the bargain by disclaiming ownership temporarily, pending federal disposition. Now, over a century later, the federal government has failed to fulfill its part.

The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. There is no constitutional provision that mandates or authorizes the federal government to permanently retain vast portions of land within state boundaries.

Proponents of federal control point to the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3), but this clause was intended to manage lands during the nation’s territorial period—not to justify permanent federal occupation of sovereign state territory.

Originalist and Textualist View: Modern overreach in land retention stretches the Property Clause far beyond its original meaning, violating the balance of power between federal and state governments.

Economic Harm and Federal Overreach

Utah’s economy, housing affordability, resource development, and local tax base are all constrained by federal land hoarding.

Consequences of current federal land policy include:

• Lost revenue from taxable land
• Restricted energy and mineral development
• Overregulation of grazing, water rights, and recreation
• Federal land management decisions made by bureaucrats with no local accountability

Constitutionally, when federal land policies infringe upon a state’s ability to govern itself and serve its citizens, federalism is undermined.
 
A Call for Legal and Legislative Action

Utah and its sister Western states should:

• Pursue new litigation: Challenge the constitutionality of indefinite federal land retention using modern originalist interpretations.
• Seek Congressional redress: Advocate for legislation to require large-scale federal land transfers back to the states.
• Mobilize public opinion: Highlight how current federal land ownership harms state sovereignty, economic growth, and individual property rights.

Conclusion

The constitutional question is not simply what the courts have ruled in the past. It is whether the current federal stranglehold on Utah lands aligns with the letter, spirit, and original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Utah deserves the same rights, sovereignty, and land ownership opportunities that the original 13 states—and most Eastern states—have enjoyed for over two centuries.

It’s time to finish the job of statehood—and return Utah’s lands to Utahns. GET ON IT ATTORNEY GENERAL BROWN!