A federal appeals court has breathed new life into Utah’s legal battle against the massive expansion of two national monuments, ruling that the White House does not have a blank check when locking up public land.

Background

The central issue before the court was whether a president’s actions under the 1906 Antiquities Act are entirely insulated from judicial scrutiny. Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson declared that federal courts have a clear role in ensuring the executive branch stays within the boundaries drawn by Congress.

Utah officials argue that the current boundaries—an area more than double the size of Delaware—clearly violate the text of the Antiquities Act. The law allows presidents to protect “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest,” but explicitly mandates that such reservations be restricted to the “smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

Implications

The decision was not unanimous. Circuit Judge Timothy M. Federico strongly dissented, arguing that the majority’s ruling opens the door for courts to overstep their bounds and interfere with executive discretion.

The appeals court did not decide whether the current size of the monuments actually violates federal law. Instead, the panel remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, where a judge will now evaluate the facts to determine if the sprawling boundaries truly represent the smallest area compatible with protecting the region’s historic artifacts.

Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.