Twenty-nine law professors from around the country have submitted a brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, contributing arguments against the state of Utah's lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden's expansion of two national monuments in 2021.

The professors submitted their amicus curiae brief Jan. 16, a legal document offering relevant information or arguments to the court by parties not involved in the litigation. Their briefing says the Antiquities Act of 1906, also known as the National Monument Act, authorizing the president to create national monuments, has proven to be "one of the most important and enduring pieces of public land legislation in U.S. history."

The brief, submitted by Chris Winter from the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder, argues that "the case presents fundamental questions about the administration of the Antiquities Act," and it is out of the scope of the courts to address the arguments presented by the plaintiffs, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, Garfield County and Kane County.

The law professors recommend that the appeals court dismiss the state's lawsuit, arguing it is outside the scope of the courts in this case to conduct an in-depth factual review of the president's actions. It instead must be handled by Congress, they argue...more

This should be of interest to all

A supreme court decision on this will determine how millions of acres of federal land will be managed. As it now stands, the President may set aside however many acres he wants protected, and he or she is not required to hold a public hearing, consult with local etities or do NEPA-type analysis. Those all come after the desigation, i.e., after the President has determined the size of the monument and what types of management shall be applied. Shou[d livestock grazing occurr? Hunting? Bicyling? All that will be in the proclamation signed by the President. The public will be commenting on how to implement the Presidents plan, not what is in it.

Below are some other articles on this issue, plus links to the Utah suit and the brief from the law professors.

Utah ranchers concerned about BLM plan to manage Grand Staircase monument

It was another day of working cattle at the Sweetwater Ranch in Garfield County, much like the thousands of days before. But lately, things just feel different.

It's enough to worry even a rugged cowboy like Derrel Spencer.

"I am scared. I don't know. We could lose everything. We stand right now to lose up to 4000 AUMs — you're talking $1.2 million for what we would lose," Spencer said.

An AUM is an animal unit month, a measurement used to determine sustainable grazing on pastureland. Spencer runs his cattle on public land in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument using grazing rights he paid for.

However, there's a chance his grazing rights, and those of other ranchers, could be dramatically reduced if a new resource management plan is put into place by the Bureau of Land Management.

\"We are not welfare ranchers. We buy these grazing rights to turn out on these public lands," Spencer said. "You wonder why these ranchers are so passionate and willing to fight over these? Because everything they have, every bit of money, every inheritance, everything they have, every savings is tied up in these. You take that away and it kills us, wipes us out."...MORE

Also see:

Supreme Court bound? Utah files appeal after judge drops national monuments lawsuit

Judge dismisses Utah's national monuments lawsuit; state vows to appeal

Why Utah Gov. Spencer Cox opposes Bears Ears, Grand Canyon monuments