One Voice
Media Partner
By Jeff Knoll 6-30-26
On June 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived Utah’s legal challenge to President Biden’s 2021 restoration and expansion of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The court did not decide whether the monument boundaries are lawful or unlawful. It did not shrink the monuments. It did not reopen any closed roads, trails, or areas. Instead, it ruled that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed at the courthouse door. The case now returns to the federal district court in Utah for further review.
The central issue is whether the President exceeded the authority Congress delegated under the Antiquities Act. The Tenth Circuit held that the Antiquities Act contains judicially reviewable limits, including the requirement that monuments protect “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest,” and that reserved lands be confined to the “smallest area compatible” with the proper care and management of those objects.
No.
The ruling does not eliminate either monument. It does not change the current boundaries today. It does not invalidate the Biden proclamations at this stage. For off-road users, that means the current rules still apply. It simply sends the case back to the district court so the lower court can consider whether the challenged proclamations exceeded the statutory limits of the Antiquities Act.
Several conservation organizations have accurately noted that the monuments remain protected while the litigation continues. NPCA, Earthjustice, and SUWA all describe the decision as a remand, not a final ruling on the monument's boundaries.
No.
The court did not decide the final merits. It did not rule that President Biden’s proclamations were unlawful. It also did not rule that they were lawful. The court said the district court must now interpret the scope of the Antiquities Act’s limits and decide whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the President exceeded those limits. The tenth circuit ruling just ensured that courts
have the ability to ensure proclamations have complied with basic statutory requirements.
This is why both sides are claiming pieces of the ruling. Access advocates can fairly say the courthouse door has reopened. Conservation advocates can fairly say the monuments remain in place for now. Both statements are true, but the practical takeaway is that the case continues and the boundaries have not changed.
No.
This ruling does not reopen any road, trail, route, canyon, wash, two-track, or motorized area. For motorized users, that means nothing on the ground has changed. Existing travel management rules, monument management plans, route designations, closures, permits, and agency decisions remain in effect unless and until they are changed through a separate legal, administrative, or planning process.
For motorized users, that means the ruling is important but not a green light to ignore current rules. Stay on designated routes, follow posted signs, check current BLM and Forest Service travel maps, and do not assume that a legal ruling about monument authority automatically changes on-the-ground access. Ignoring current decisions will only make long term decisions to
improve access more difficult as the off-road community would put their victims of governmental
overreach status at risk. It is rare the motorized community has this type of argument in our
favor and confirmed by a circuit court.
The ruling is important because it confirms that presidential monument proclamations are not automatically beyond judicial review when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a President exceeded the authority granted by Congress under the Antiquities Act.
That matters to motorized recreation because monument designations and monument management plans can affect road maintenance, route designations, special recreation permits, organized events, grazing, vegetation management, access to historic roads, and the long-term ability of local communities to use and steward public lands. For users, the ruling keeps those issues in play.
The court’s reasoning makes clear that the words Congress used in the Antiquities Act still matter. “Smallest area compatible” is not just decorative language. A court may now have to interpret and apply it.
The Antiquities Act is a federal law that allows the President to designate national monuments on federal land to protect historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.
The law also says that the land reserved around those objects must be limited to the smallest area necessary for their proper care and management.
For more than a century, Presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments. The legal fight in this case is not about whether the Antiquities Act exists or whether Presidents have some authority over monuments. It is about whether the 2021 Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante proclamations exceeded the limits Congress placed on that authority.
The court said that when the President acts within authority delegated by Congress, sovereign immunity generally protects those actions from suit. But when the President allegedly exceeds statutory limits, the action may be considered ultra vires, meaning beyond lawful authority.
That is the heart of the ruling. The court concluded that the district court used an overly broad view of sovereign immunity when it dismissed the lawsuit. According to the Tenth Circuit, courts may review presidential action when plaintiffs allege that the President exceeded the statutory limits Congress placed on that authority.
The remaining plaintiffs include the State of Utah, Garfield County, and Kane County. The Tenth Circuit rejected the federal defendants’ argument that the Utah plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found that Utah and the counties had sufficiently alleged injuries, including impacts to planned activities, road maintenance, vegetation and wildlife management, revenue, and other economic harms.
No. This is an important clarification.
BlueRibbon Coalition was not denied intervention status. BlueRibbon was a plaintiff in the related Dalton case, along with several individual plaintiffs. The district court dismissed their claims for lack of standing, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that dismissal.
The reason was procedural and legal, not a ruling that motorized recreation interests do not matter. The court explained that BlueRibbon and the individual plaintiffs did not properly preserve the standing issue in their opening appellate brief. The court said they raised the standing argument too late, in reply, and therefore waived it. As a result, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their claims.
No.
BlueRibbon’s dismissal does not mean the access argument lost on the merits. It does not mean OHV users lack legitimate concerns. It does not mean organized recreation, special recreation permits, motorized access, or route designations are irrelevant. For users, it means those issues were not resolved in BlueRibbon’s favor in this appeal.
It means that, in this appeal, BlueRibbon and the individual plaintiffs did not remain in the case because of standing and waiver issues. Meanwhile, the State of Utah and county plaintiffs remain in the litigation, and the broader challenge to the monument proclamations continues.
sign up for our trail mail newsletter
Reprint Permission: This article may be shared or republished in full, provided it is reproduced exactly as originally published and includes the author’s byline. No edits, excerpts, rewrites, summaries, translations, artificial intelligence-generated versions, derivative works, or manipulated versions are permitted without prior written permission from the author.
By Jeff Knoll Find me on LinkedIn @ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-knoll-b5632437/
Originally published at: OneVoiceRec.org
© 2026 Jeff Knoll. All rights reserved except as expressly permitted above.
Continue reading...
What happened?
On June 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived Utah’s legal challenge to President Biden’s 2021 restoration and expansion of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The court did not decide whether the monument boundaries are lawful or unlawful. It did not shrink the monuments. It did not reopen any closed roads, trails, or areas. Instead, it ruled that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed at the courthouse door. The case now returns to the federal district court in Utah for further review.
The central issue is whether the President exceeded the authority Congress delegated under the Antiquities Act. The Tenth Circuit held that the Antiquities Act contains judicially reviewable limits, including the requirement that monuments protect “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest,” and that reserved lands be confined to the “smallest area compatible” with the proper care and management of those objects.
Did the court eliminate Bears Ears or Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments?
No.
The ruling does not eliminate either monument. It does not change the current boundaries today. It does not invalidate the Biden proclamations at this stage. For off-road users, that means the current rules still apply. It simply sends the case back to the district court so the lower court can consider whether the challenged proclamations exceeded the statutory limits of the Antiquities Act.
Several conservation organizations have accurately noted that the monuments remain protected while the litigation continues. NPCA, Earthjustice, and SUWA all describe the decision as a remand, not a final ruling on the monument's boundaries.
Did the court rule that President Biden exceeded the Antiquities Act?
No.
The court did not decide the final merits. It did not rule that President Biden’s proclamations were unlawful. It also did not rule that they were lawful. The court said the district court must now interpret the scope of the Antiquities Act’s limits and decide whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the President exceeded those limits. The tenth circuit ruling just ensured that courts
have the ability to ensure proclamations have complied with basic statutory requirements.
This is why both sides are claiming pieces of the ruling. Access advocates can fairly say the courthouse door has reopened. Conservation advocates can fairly say the monuments remain in place for now. Both statements are true, but the practical takeaway is that the case continues and the boundaries have not changed.
Did the court reopen roads or trails for off-road use?
No.
This ruling does not reopen any road, trail, route, canyon, wash, two-track, or motorized area. For motorized users, that means nothing on the ground has changed. Existing travel management rules, monument management plans, route designations, closures, permits, and agency decisions remain in effect unless and until they are changed through a separate legal, administrative, or planning process.
For motorized users, that means the ruling is important but not a green light to ignore current rules. Stay on designated routes, follow posted signs, check current BLM and Forest Service travel maps, and do not assume that a legal ruling about monument authority automatically changes on-the-ground access. Ignoring current decisions will only make long term decisions to
improve access more difficult as the off-road community would put their victims of governmental
overreach status at risk. It is rare the motorized community has this type of argument in our
favor and confirmed by a circuit court.
Why is this ruling important for OHV and off-road users?
The ruling is important because it confirms that presidential monument proclamations are not automatically beyond judicial review when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a President exceeded the authority granted by Congress under the Antiquities Act.
That matters to motorized recreation because monument designations and monument management plans can affect road maintenance, route designations, special recreation permits, organized events, grazing, vegetation management, access to historic roads, and the long-term ability of local communities to use and steward public lands. For users, the ruling keeps those issues in play.
The court’s reasoning makes clear that the words Congress used in the Antiquities Act still matter. “Smallest area compatible” is not just decorative language. A court may now have to interpret and apply it.
What is the Antiquities Act?
The Antiquities Act is a federal law that allows the President to designate national monuments on federal land to protect historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.
The law also says that the land reserved around those objects must be limited to the smallest area necessary for their proper care and management.
For more than a century, Presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments. The legal fight in this case is not about whether the Antiquities Act exists or whether Presidents have some authority over monuments. It is about whether the 2021 Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante proclamations exceeded the limits Congress placed on that authority.
What did the Tenth Circuit say about presidential power?
The court said that when the President acts within authority delegated by Congress, sovereign immunity generally protects those actions from suit. But when the President allegedly exceeds statutory limits, the action may be considered ultra vires, meaning beyond lawful authority.
That is the heart of the ruling. The court concluded that the district court used an overly broad view of sovereign immunity when it dismissed the lawsuit. According to the Tenth Circuit, courts may review presidential action when plaintiffs allege that the President exceeded the statutory limits Congress placed on that authority.
Who are the remaining plaintiffs?
The remaining plaintiffs include the State of Utah, Garfield County, and Kane County. The Tenth Circuit rejected the federal defendants’ argument that the Utah plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found that Utah and the counties had sufficiently alleged injuries, including impacts to planned activities, road maintenance, vegetation and wildlife management, revenue, and other economic harms.
Was the BlueRibbon Coalition denied intervention status?
No. This is an important clarification.
BlueRibbon Coalition was not denied intervention status. BlueRibbon was a plaintiff in the related Dalton case, along with several individual plaintiffs. The district court dismissed their claims for lack of standing, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that dismissal.
The reason was procedural and legal, not a ruling that motorized recreation interests do not matter. The court explained that BlueRibbon and the individual plaintiffs did not properly preserve the standing issue in their opening appellate brief. The court said they raised the standing argument too late, in reply, and therefore waived it. As a result, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their claims.
Does the BlueRibbon Coalition’s dismissal mean off-road users lost?
No.
BlueRibbon’s dismissal does not mean the access argument lost on the merits. It does not mean OHV users lack legitimate concerns. It does not mean organized recreation, special recreation permits, motorized access, or route designations are irrelevant. For users, it means those issues were not resolved in BlueRibbon’s favor in this appeal.
It means that, in this appeal, BlueRibbon and the individual plaintiffs did not remain in the case because of standing and waiver issues. Meanwhile, the State of Utah and county plaintiffs remain in the litigation, and the broader challenge to the monument proclamations continues.
sign up for our trail mail newsletter
Reprint Permission: This article may be shared or republished in full, provided it is reproduced exactly as originally published and includes the author’s byline. No edits, excerpts, rewrites, summaries, translations, artificial intelligence-generated versions, derivative works, or manipulated versions are permitted without prior written permission from the author.
By Jeff Knoll Find me on LinkedIn @ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-knoll-b5632437/
Originally published at: OneVoiceRec.org
© 2026 Jeff Knoll. All rights reserved except as expressly permitted above.
Continue reading...