A federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit from the Arizona State Legislature that challenged former President Joe Biden’s 2023 designation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. That monument protects nearly one million acres of public lands in Northern Arizona from future mining claims.
Judge Stephen McNamee, in his ruling, said the Arizona State Legislature does not have the authority to act on behalf of the state in a case against the federal government, as established by Arizona Law and the separation of powers clause in the Arizona Constitution.
“Litigating on the state's behalf is the prerogative of the executive branch, not the Legislature,” McNamee wrote.
In February 2024, Arizona’s top Republican lawmakers brought the lawsuit, alleging that the designation was a “dictator-style land grab.”
“Biden’s maneuver is incredibly disingenuous, as it has nothing to do with protecting actual artifacts,” Senate President Warren Petersen previously said. “Instead, it aims to halt all mining, ranching, and other local uses of federal lands that are critical to our energy independence from adversary foreign nations, our food supply, and the strength of our economy.”
Now, Petersen says the legal battle will likely continue.
“We are reviewing this ruling and will likely file an appeal,” he said.
Attorney General Kris Mayes celebrated the dismissal on Tuesday. She and Governor Katie Hobbs moved to intervene in the case last fall asking the judge to throw out the case.
“Senate President Warren Petersen and Former House Speaker Ben Toma’s blatant attempt at a power grab in this case overstepped their authority and wasted taxpayer resources,” Mayes said. “As Attorney General, I speak for the state in federal court, and I am grateful Judge McNamee rightfully agreed.”
Petersen, along with Toma, held that Biden’s designation was an overreach of the 1906 Antiquities Act, which allows a president to designate federal land for protection.
“Congress passed the Antiquities Act to protect just that: antiquities,” the initial filing read. “It did not pass the law to allow the Biden Administration to declare every inch of federal land a federal forest, cut off from all but those it selects.”
They argue that antiquities only encompass “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.” According to the designation, the Grand Canyon region contains over 3,000 known cultural and historic sites, including 12 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places,” like cliff houses, rock art, and sacred sites, including the ancestral homelands of several Indigenous tribes like the Havasupai.
McNamee also turned down arguments surrounding concerns over the designation’s restriction on new uranium mining claims. Petersen and Toma believed that a “significant portion of energy produced and consumed in Arizona comes from nuclear power.” With a dependence on foreign uranium, they see this type of designation as a risk to power supplies.
“Many uranium imports come from companies owned by nations, like Russia, with interests adverse to the interests of the United States and who ‘leverage’ their control over those companies ‘to further geopolitical ambitions,’” their February 2024 lawsuit read.
The judge disagreed, saying that the economic gains from mining claims in the area are too remote and speculative to constitute a concrete injury.
Petersen is certain that the dismissal will not stay.
“We are confident this unconstitutional land grab will be reversed, either by the courts or by the Trump Administration.”
During President Trump’s first term, he scaled down two national monuments in Utah– the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument. Biden restored those cuts made during his administration. Environmental advocates are unsure if Trump would go after other national monuments, like the Grand Canyon National Monument, this time around.
By submitting your comments, you hereby give AZPM the right to post your comments and potentially use them in any other form of media operated by this institution.