The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday from Arizona elected officials seeking to challenge President Biden's designation of a new national monument near the Grand Canyon, with state representatives claiming the federal action will cost them $180 million in lost mining revenue.
In 2023, former President Joe Biden signed an executive order creating the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni Grand Canyon National Monument, protecting three large chunks of land adjacent to the Grand Canyon from future development. The designation permanently prohibits uranium mining in the area, which was set to become legal in 2032.
The Arizona Legislature, along with the state's treasurer, a county and two small towns, filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration attempting to block the creation of the new monument. The plaintiffs argue that Biden's executive order constituted an abuse of the Antiquities Act and interfered with the state's economic resources by removing more than 900,000 acres from potential mining operations.
Justin Smith, representing the plaintiffs from the James Otis Law Group, told the three-judge panel that governments were set to lose some $180 million in state and local tax revenue, citing environmental impact statements as support for the financial projections.
However, U.S. Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' claims. The judge questioned how officials could demonstrate concrete injury from mining operations that might not even be economically viable years in the future.
'For your clients to be injured in 2032 there needs to be an economic incentive at the time, given the mining prices in 2032,' Friedland said. 'How do we know that to be true?'
Smith responded by pointing to current market conditions, arguing that there is 'clearly a desire for uranium' and noting that 'it's much more expensive than it was 20 years ago.' Uranium prices have indeed surged since 2017 and remain significantly higher than they were in 2004, though they remained low for decades prior to that period.
When pressed by Judge Friedland about whether any ongoing mining operations were actually halted because of the monument designation, Smith acknowledged that there were none. This admission highlighted a central challenge in the case: demonstrating concrete harm from restrictions on future activities that may or may not prove economically viable.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Amy Collier emphasized this point, telling the court: 'Here we have speculation that sometime in the future, third parties will do something.' The government's position suggests that the plaintiffs' claims rest on hypothetical future scenarios rather than demonstrable current injuries.
The case reflects broader political divisions within Arizona itself. While Republicans maintain control of the state legislature, Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs has taken a different stance on the monument. The state of Arizona, represented by the state attorney general, intervened in the case arguing in favor of the monument and supporting the mining ban.
The lawsuit initially faced a significant procedural hurdle when a federal judge dismissed it, finding that all plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The dismissal was based on the court's determination that the parties could not demonstrate sufficient injury to give them legal standing to challenge the federal action. The current appeal seeks to overturn that dismissal and allow the case to proceed on its merits.
The Antiquities Act, signed into law in 1906, gives presidents broad authority to designate national monuments to protect areas of historical, cultural, or scientific significance. The law has been used by presidents of both parties to preserve millions of acres of public land, though its use has sometimes generated controversy when it restricts commercial activities.
The Grand Canyon monument designation represents one of several high-profile conservation actions taken during the Biden administration. The protected areas contain significant cultural and environmental resources, including sites sacred to Native American tribes in the region.
The economic arguments advanced by Arizona officials reflect ongoing tensions between conservation efforts and economic development, particularly in Western states where federal land ownership is extensive. Uranium mining has become a particularly contentious issue given both its economic potential and environmental concerns.
The Ninth Circuit's eventual decision could have implications for future challenges to presidential monument designations and may clarify the standards for establishing standing in cases involving potential future economic impacts. The court did not indicate when it would issue its ruling.
The case also highlights the complex interplay between federal authority over public lands and state economic interests, an issue that has generated litigation across the American West for decades. How the appeals court resolves the standing question could influence similar challenges to federal land use decisions.