(Kyle Dunphey/Utah News Dispatch via the North Dakota Monitor)

(Kyle Dunphey/North Dakota Monitor) -Several states including North Dakota are throwing their support behind Utah’s lawsuit that questions whether the Bureau of Land Management can hold onto nearly 18.5 million acres of public land within the state’s borders.

Filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in August, Utah’s lawsuit argues that the BLM can’t indefinitely hold onto land without giving it a designation, like a national monument, national forest or wilderness area. Those 18.5 million acres are what the state calls “unappropriated land” — they’re still leased for grazing, recreation and mineral extraction, but have no designation.

Now, 12 states and a few state legislatures are supporting Utah’s effort, signing amicus briefs on Tuesday with the nation’s high court.

An amicus brief, also called a “friend of the court” brief, is filed by organizations or individuals who are not named in the lawsuit, but have an interest in the case or would like to support a particular side. In total, 11 briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court by various groups, states and politicians, all of them supporting Utah’s effort. They include:

• -Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming and the Arizona Legislature.
• -Iowa, which spearheaded a brief signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.
• -Utah’s entire Congressional delegation, which includes Sens. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee, and Reps. Blake Moore, Celeste Maloy, John Curtis and Burgess Owens, all Republicans. Wyoming GOP Rep. Harriet Hageman also signed onto the brief.
• -The Utah Legislature.
• -The Wyoming Legislature.
• -The Utah Association of Counties.
• -The American Lands Council, a nonprofit organization based in Utah that advocates for access to public lands.
• -The Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based conservative think tank.
• -The Utah Public Lands Council, Utah Wool Growers Association, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, and county farm bureaus from Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Uintah and Washington counties.
• -The Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm.
• -A coalition of counties in Arizona and New Mexico, the New Mexico Federal Lands Council and New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau.

The brief spearheaded by Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador argues the federal government’s control of unappropriated land curtails state sovereignty.

“The federal government may validly own land in the interior as necessary to exercise enumerated powers, as with military bases, federal courthouses, and so on. But the unappropriated lands at issue here are not being used in the exercise of enumerated powers. They are ‘land that the United States is simply holding, without formally reserving it for any designated purpose,’” the brief reads.

In the filing, attorneys argue that the state’s inability to control that land causes a host of problems. There’s a different criminal code; the land cannot be taxed by the state and results in tax hikes; the state cannot exercise eminent domain; and the state can’t generate revenue from grazing fees, mineral leases or timber sales, the brief claims.

“Granting the relief Utah requests would begin to level the playing field for all western States, and restore the proper balance of federalism between western States and the federal government,” the brief reads.

The brief led by Iowa and signed by eight other attorneys general focuses more on whether the Supreme Court should take up the case, and less on the merits of Utah’s lawsuit. Utah is invoking original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the Supreme Court rather than starting in a lower court and then going through the appeals process. To invoke original jurisdiction, the issue needs to be between a state and the federal government.

Most of the cases considered by the high court are appeals — in Iowa’s brief, attorneys ask the justices to consider Utah’s complaint.

“Few issues are as fundamentally important to a State as control of its land,” the brief reads. “The Amici States respectfully ask this Court to take this case out of respect for the sovereign dignity inherent in a State’s dispute against the United States.”

___________________________________________________