A Turning Point for the Antiquities Act and National Monuments
A Turning Point for the Antiquities Act: The Courts Reclaim Their Constitutional Role
For years, Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) has advocated a simple principle:
Public lands should be managed according to the laws enacted by Congress—not according to assumptions that presidential authority under the Antiquities Act is effectively unlimited.
That principle recently received significant support from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. While much of the public attention has focused on whether the case involved Bears Ears or Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the court’s decision reaches far beyond those two monuments.
At its core, this case asks a fundamental constitutional question:
When Congress places limits on presidential authority, who decides whether those limits have been followed?
The Tenth Circuit’s answer is straightforward:
The federal courts do.
The Antiquities Act Grants Power—But Also Imposes Limits
When Congress enacted the Antiquities Act in 1906, it gave Presidents important authority to protect historic, prehistoric, and scientific resources on federal lands.
President Theodore Roosevelt quickly demonstrated how valuable that authority could be, proclaiming monuments ranging from Devils Tower and Montezuma Castle to the Grand Canyon. But Congress did not grant unlimited authority.
The statute contains two important limitations that have always been part of the law.
- First, Presidents may designate only “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”
- Second, the land reserved for those objects must be confined to “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
Those limitations were not accidental. Congress deliberately included them to define the scope of the President’s delegated authority.
If Congress Wrote Limits Into the Law, Someone Must Interpret Them
This is where the recent litigation became so important.
The plaintiffs—including the State of Utah, Garfield County, Kane County, BlueRibbon Coalition, and others—argued that the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante expansions exceeded those statutory limitations. They did not argue that Presidents lack authority to proclaim national monuments. Instead, they argued that Congress had established legal boundaries governing how that authority may be exercised.
The district court dismissed the case before reaching those questions. In doing so, it concluded that the President’s determinations under the Antiquities Act were largely committed to presidential discretion and therefore not subject to meaningful judicial review.
In practical terms, the district court did not undertake the statutory interpretation necessary to determine whether the identified resources qualified under the Act or whether the acreage reserved satisfied Congress’s “smallest area compatible” requirement.
The Tenth Circuit concluded that approach was incorrect.
The Tenth Circuit Restored the Judiciary’s Constitutional Role
The Court of Appeals did not rule that the monument expansions violated the Antiquities Act. It also did not reduce monument boundaries.
Instead, it held that the district court had an obligation to interpret the statutory limits written by Congress rather than simply defer to the President’s judgment.
- Congress writes the law.
- The President executes the law.
- The courts interpret what the law means and determine whether executive action remains within the authority Congress delegated.
The Tenth Circuit recognized that interpreting terms such as “objects of historic or scientific interest” and “smallest area compatible” is not merely permissible—it is part of the judiciary’s constitutional responsibility.
The case now returns to the district court to perform that analysis.
Why This Matters Beyond One Lawsuit
The significance of this decision extends well beyond Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. For many years, monument litigation often ended with courts giving extraordinary deference to presidential determinations.
The Tenth Circuit has now clarified that the statutory limits contained in the Antiquities Act are not meaningless words. They are legal standards capable of judicial interpretation and review.
Whether future courts ultimately conclude that a particular monument complies with those standards remains to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But the legal framework has changed.
BlueRibbon Coalition’s Role
Some observers have focused on the dismissal of BlueRibbon Coalition from the appeal. That dismissal resulted from a procedural issue concerning the preservation of standing arguments during the appellate process.
The court did not reject BlueRibbon’s substantive legal arguments concerning the Antiquities Act, nor did it hold that BlueRibbon lacked standing on the merits. Although BlueRibbon Coalition’s appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, the dismissal was without prejudice. The court did not reject BlueRibbon’s legal arguments concerning the Antiquities Act or hold that it could never pursue similar claims in the future. Instead, the Tenth Circuit corrected the district court by emphasizing that jurisdictional dismissals are not decisions on the merits. More importantly, the fundamental legal questions presented by BlueRibbon, Utah, Garfield County, Kane County, and the other plaintiffs remain before the district court. The extensive briefing submitted throughout this litigation helped frame the statutory questions that now return to the district court under the legal framework established by the Tenth Circuit.
BlueRibbon Coalition plans to continue to be part of this case all the way through final judgment.
A Changing Landscape
This decision also arrives during a period of significant change in federal public lands policy. The Executive Branch has increasingly emphasized multiple-use management, responsible public access, and reconsideration of previous land management decisions.
At the same time, the Department of Justice has advanced the legal position that Presidents possess authority not only to establish national monuments but also to modify or revoke monument designations made by previous administrations.
Whether courts ultimately adopt that interpretation remains uncertain. Nevertheless, these developments illustrate that the broader legal and policy landscape surrounding the Antiquities Act continues to evolve.
What This Means for Responsible Recreation
For the off-highway vehicle community, this decision represents something larger than a dispute over monument boundaries. It reaffirms an important constitutional principle. Public lands should be managed according to the laws enacted by Congress. When Congress grants authority, it may also establish limits.
When questions arise concerning those limits, it is the responsibility of the federal courts—not any President acting alone—to determine whether those limits have been respected.
That principle benefits everyone. It protects historic and scientific resources. It preserves the separation of powers established by the Constitution. And it helps ensure that public land decisions remain accountable to the law rather than resting solely on executive discretion.
Looking Ahead
The district court will now undertake the detailed work it did not previously reach—interpreting the Antiquities Act’s statutory limitations and determining whether the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that those limitations were exceeded. The final outcome of the case remains to be seen. But one thing has already changed. For perhaps the first time in decades, a federal appellate court has clearly reaffirmed that the Antiquities Act is both a grant of presidential authority and a statute containing meaningful legal limitations.
Those limitations matter.
And the federal courts have reaffirmed that interpreting them is one of the judiciary’s most important constitutional responsibilities.
UPLA celebrates this important win and gratefully recognizes the efforts of the State of Utah, Kane County, Garfield County, and BlueRibbon Coalition in achieving this win for overturning the sweeping RMPs for multiple National Monuments that restrict motorized access.
Loren Campbell
President
Utah Public Lands Alliance
