## Facts

- A public-interest foundation and an off-road recreation group sued federal officials to invalidate six presidential proclamations creating national monuments on western federal lands under the Antiquities Act.
- The proclamations identified various protected “objects of historic or scientific interest” (e.g., archaeological resources, geological features, and biological diversity) and stated that the reserved lands were the minimum necessary for protection.
- Plaintiffs alleged the monuments were far larger than needed, did not properly protect qualifying “objects,” and restricted prior multiple uses such as grazing, motorized recreation, and logging.
- The district court dismissed under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), reasoning that plaintiffs had not pleaded facts showing the President plainly exceeded statutory limits.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court should look beyond the proclamations’ text and permit factual inquiry into whether the monuments exceeded the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient monument-specific facts to state an ultra vires claim that the President exceeded the Antiquities Act’s limits on (a) qualifying “objects” and (b) reserving only the smallest compatible area.
2. Whether the court needed to decide a constitutional nondelegation challenge premised on an asserted lack of meaningful judicial review of monument proclamations.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to warrant review of their ultra vires claim.
- Because the statutory claim was inadequately pleaded, the court declined to reach the nondelegation argument.
- The court expressly left open whether, and to what extent, courts may review Antiquities Act monument proclamations and whether review may extend beyond the proclamations’ text.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff asserting an ultra vires challenge to presidential action under the Antiquities Act must plead concrete, monument-specific facts that, if true, would show the President clearly exceeded statutory constraints.
- Conclusory assertions that monument boundaries are “too large” or inconsistent with preferred land uses do not state a claim without factual allegations tied to particular proclamations and the statutory limits.
- Courts avoid constitutional questions, including nondelegation claims, when a case can be resolved on narrower pleading grounds.
- When a proclamation recites protected objects and states the reserved area is the minimum necessary, a complaint must allege specific facts calling those determinations into question before a court has reason to pursue further inquiry.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld dismissal of the challenge to six national monument designations because the plaintiffs did not plead monument-specific facts showing that the proclamations exceeded the Antiquities Act’s “objects” and “smallest area” limitations, and the court therefore did not address broader questions about reviewability or nondelegation.


Mountain States Legal Found. v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2002)