## Facts

- In 1996, the President issued a proclamation under the Antiquities Act creating the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.
- The proclamation reserved roughly 1.7 million acres of federal land to protect identified historic and scientific resources, including geological formations, paleontological sites, archaeological materials, and distinctive soils.
- The proclamation stated the reservation was “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
- County and property-rights organizations sued federal officials, challenging the monument’s legality and seeking to set aside the proclamation as beyond statutory and constitutional authority.
- Plaintiffs alleged the designation lacked qualifying “objects” and that the acreage was not confined to the smallest compatible area.
- Plaintiffs also asserted that the proclamation and/or the Antiquities Act as applied violated the Property Clause and separation of powers by allowing large-scale land reservation without Congress.
- The government moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment; plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether challenges to a presidential monument proclamation under the Antiquities Act are justiciable and, if so, what the scope of judicial review is.
2. Whether the proclamation exceeded the Antiquities Act by failing to identify qualifying “objects of historic or scientific interest” or by reserving more land than the “smallest area compatible” with protecting those objects.
3. Whether the Antiquities Act and the monument proclamation violated the Property Clause or separation of powers principles (including an improper delegation claim).

## Decision

- The court granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment.
- The court held the claims were largely nonjusticiable to the extent they asked the judiciary to second-guess the President’s discretionary determinations about the protected objects and the monument’s size.
- Even assuming limited review, the court found the proclamation facially satisfied the Antiquities Act by identifying protected objects and stating the acreage was the smallest compatible area.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges, concluding the Antiquities Act is a valid delegation of Congress’s Property Clause power and the proclamation did not violate separation of powers.

## Legal Principles

- The Antiquities Act grants the President broad discretion to declare national monuments on federal land containing “objects of historic or scientific interest” and to reserve land needed for their protection.
- Judicial review of such proclamations is extremely limited; courts generally will not reweigh factual, scientific, or policy determinations committed to presidential discretion.
- A proclamation that identifies qualifying protected objects and includes the statutory “smallest area compatible” finding is typically sufficient absent a clear showing of action outside the statute.
- “Objects of historic or scientific interest” may include geological, paleontological, and archaeological resources described at a scale broader than discrete artifacts.
- The Antiquities Act supplies an intelligible principle (protect qualifying objects; limit reserved area to compatible minimum) and is a constitutional delegation under the Property Clause.
- When the President acts within a congressionally authorized framework for land reservations, the action does not violate separation of powers.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld the monument’s creation, concluding that the plaintiffs’ objections largely sought impermissible judicial second-guessing of discretionary determinations under the Antiquities Act and that, in any event, the proclamation satisfied the statute and did not violate the Constitution.


Utah Ass’n of Cntys. v. Bush, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Utah 2004)