## Facts

- The Antiquities Act authorizes the President, “in his discretion,” to proclaim national monuments on federal land to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest,” while limiting reservations to “the smallest area compatible” with protecting those objects.
- In 2000, a presidential proclamation created the Giant Sequoia National Monument within the Sequoia National Forest, covering about 327,769 acres.
- The proclamation identified objects to be protected, including giant sequoia groves and surrounding ecosystems, along with archaeological, historic, and biological resources.
- Tulare County, California, and associated timber and recreational interests sued federal officials, alleging the proclamation failed to identify qualifying objects and reserved more land than the Act permits.
- Plaintiffs also asserted the designation would constrain timber harvesting and other uses and raised separation-of-powers objections.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim that the monument proclamation exceeded the Antiquities Act by failing to identify qualifying “objects of historic or scientific interest.”
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim that the acreage reserved violated the Act’s “smallest area compatible” limitation.
3. Whether, given the discretionary character of the President’s Antiquities Act authority and the complaint’s level of specificity, the challenge was justiciable.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- Conclusory allegations that the monument contained “too much land” were insufficient without specific factual allegations identifying areas allegedly unnecessary to protect the identified objects.
- The proclamation’s detailed identification of protected objects defeated the pleaded assertion that no qualifying objects were identified.
- The court treated the President’s Antiquities Act determinations as highly discretionary and declined to second-guess the acreage judgment on the complaint as pleaded.
- The court avoided reaching broad constitutional attacks on the Antiquities Act because the complaint failed on pleading and reviewability grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff challenging a monument under the Antiquities Act must plead concrete, specific facts showing the President identified no qualifying objects or reserved land beyond what is compatible with protecting identified objects.
- General assertions that a monument is “too large” do not state a claim absent allegations tied to particular parcels and reasons the acreage is unnecessary to protect the specified objects.
- Courts give substantial deference to presidential determinations under the Antiquities Act’s “in his discretion” language, especially regarding the amount of land reserved.
- Where the complaint is insufficiently specific, courts may dismiss without deciding constitutional nondelegation or separation-of-powers challenges to the statute.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld dismissal of Tulare County’s challenge to the Giant Sequoia National Monument because the plaintiffs offered only conclusory allegations and did not plead specific facts showing the President exceeded the Antiquities Act’s object-identification or acreage limitations, warranting deferential, limited judicial review and no decision on broader constitutional claims.


Tulare County v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 813 (2003)