Grand Canyon national monument designation survives court
Joe Duhownik
(CN) — A loss of potential mining revenue in 2032 is far too speculative an injury to justify a challenge to the designation of a national monument surrounding the Grand Canyon, a Ninth Circuit panel decided Wednesday.
Arizona’s Republican-dominated Legislature, the state treasurer and a handful of counties and towns adjacent to the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument say then-President Joe Biden violated the Antiquities Act when he designated the monument in 2023. They claim the designation encroached on state land and prevented the mining of uranium and other resources around the National Park.
Potential mining claims could not have been made before 2032 though, thanks to a 20-year moratorium on new mining projects President Barack Obama placed over the same parcels of land in 2012.
In an unpublished memorandum Wednesday morning, the three-judge panel agreed that any potential injury to the state is mooted by that moratorium.
“To qualify as an injury in fact for purposes of establishing standing, a future injury must be imminent, not speculative,” the panel wrote. “Their alleged loss of future tax revenue depends on uranium prices being sufficiently high in 2032 (or whenever the 2012 Withdrawal lapses) such that third-party companies would choose to begin mining. But it is speculative whether the right economic conditions and incentives for uranium mining will exist so far into the future.”
U.S. District Judge Stephen McNamee, a George H.W. Bush appointee, dismissed the lawsuit in 2025 because the plaintiffs lacked standing. The Ninth Circuit panel concurred.
The Legislature argued before the Ninth Circuit in February that the monument, which encloses some untouched parcels of state land, will reduce the value of that state land. Because that injury would apply directly to the state, only the state or a designated agent, not its Legislature or treasurer, could bring that claim in federal court.
Arizona Senate Republicans say they are working with the Trump administration to reverse the designation.
“It’s sad to see the Ninth Circuit kicked the can down the road,” state Senate President Warren Petersen told Courthouse News. “The court did not address whether the Biden administration had the right to create this massive national monument around the Grand Canyon — it simply ruled that our challenge came too soon. Arizona families should not have to wait years while our land and economic opportunities remain locked up. We will continue fighting to protect Arizona’s economy, jobs, and state sovereignty from this expansive federal land lock-up.”
The monument covers roughly 900,000 acres of land in three areas surrounding the canyon. The Grand Canyon Tribal Coalition — made up of 12 tribes that live near the canyon and pushed alongside the Grand Canyon Trust for the designation — says increased uranium mining could contaminate drinking water for thousands of people, pointing to decades of poisoning endured by the Navajo Nation after the U.S. government abandoned hundreds of uranium mines on Navajo land.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the people of Arizona and for the Indigenous communities whose ancestral homelands are protected by this monument,” Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a Wednesday press release. “The court rejected every argument Senate President Warren Petersen, Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro and Treasurer Kimberly Yee put forward. I am proud to have stood up to defend these sacred and important lands.”
The Biden administration said the designation would protect sacred cultural spaces while respecting existing livestock grazing permits and preserving access for hunting and fishing. The monument will “help right the wrongs of the past and conserve this land of ancestral footprints,” Biden said in 2023.
Companies with active claims to land in the area will still be allowed to mine — the executive order only prevents development of new mines.
At oral arguments, the plaintiffs admitted that no active mining projects were halted.
“To the extent the local governments allege that, separate and apart from anticipated uranium mining, they are presently losing tax revenue from the ban on mineral and geothermal leasing, that injury is equally speculative,” the panel wrote. “Plaintiffs fail to allege that any entity has ever sought to engage in ‘mineral or geothermal leasing,’ or that the monument land even contains those resources.”
Colorado City, bordering Utah, argued separately that the city’s water rights may be threatened if the federal government decides to restrict pumping on the now-federally controlled land. The panel found that the fear of losing water rights directly conflicted with the proclamation, which made clear that no water rights would be affected.
The Legislature also argued that the monument designation forced it to divert resources to activities like passing laws and holding hearings, like the one it held to dispute the designation in 2023, regarding the monument’s legality.
“But a plaintiff may not manufacture an injury by simply choosing to spend money,” the panel retorted.
Finally, the plaintiffs suggested the state will suffer future economic harm by paying higher electricity bills than it would have if the federal government allowed uranium mining to proliferate in the area.
“That theory fares no better than the others,” the panel found. “Future energy prices depend on many unknown variables and the unfettered choices of innumerable third parties. Any future economic harm from higher energy prices caused by the proclamation is accordingly far too speculative to support standing.”
The panel was comprised of U.S. Circuit Judges Consuelo Callahan, appointed by George W. Bush, John B. Owens and Michelle Friedland, both Obama appointees.
Legislative Republicans did not immediately reply to requests for comment.