Arizona officials clash over new Grand Canyon monument in court
Hillel Aron
(CN) — Arizona elected officials asked a Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday to allow them to sue the federal government over a newly designated national monument near the Grand Canyon.
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 any future development. Most notably, the move will permanently prohibit any uranium mining in the area, which was set to become legal in 2032.
The Arizona Legislature, as well as 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. Biden’s executive order, they said, was an abuse of the Antiquities Act, and was interfering with the state’s economic resources by cutting out more than 900,000 acres from mining and thus depriving the state of jobs and tax revenue.
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, pointing to environmental impact statements.
But U.S. Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, was skeptical. How did anyone know whether it would make sense to open up new uranium mines six years from now?
“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?”
“There is clearly a desire for uranium,” said Smith. “It’s much more expensive than it was 20 years ago.”
Indeed, uranium prices have surged since 2017, and remain much higher than they were in 2004. Prior to that, however, uranium prices remained low for decades.
Friedland asked Smith if there were any ongoing mining operations that were halted because of the proclamation. Smith admitted there were not.
“Here we have speculation that sometime in the future, third parties will do something,” said U.S. Department of Justice attorney Amy Collier.
While Republicans maintain a firm grip on the Legislature, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs is a Democrat. As a result, the state of Arizona, represented by the state attorney general, intervened in the case, arguing in favor of the monument and the mining ban.
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, finding that the plaintiffs all lacked standing to sue. They appealed.
“Legislative standing is a rare thing,” said Alexander Samuels, a lawyer with the state attorney general’s office, during oral arguments held on Tuesday. “It requires power to have been taken away, or an action to have been nullified.” The harm, in this case, was largely speculative — lost tax revenue in 2032.
“The state land department could perhaps sue on behalf of themselves, but not the state Legislature,” Samuels said.
He added that many of the new monument’s impacts on the state could be positive — it could see increased tourism, for example.
The panel, rounded out by U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge John Owens, another Obama appointee, took the case under submission. The trio will issue a ruling later this year.