This case involves a challenge to a presidential proclamation establishing the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The proclamation prohibits mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal leasing on the monument land, though mining had already been banned since 2012 under a separate withdrawal order set to expire in 2032. The plaintiffs include the Arizona State Legislature, the State Treasurer, and three local governments: Mohave County, Colorado City, and the Town of Fredonia. They sued the President and various federal officials, seeking to set aside the proclamation. The plaintiffs alleged various injuries, including lost future tax revenue from uranium mining, threats to water supplies, and a loss of legislative prerogative over state lands. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit applied the strict Article III standing requirements, focusing on the 'imminence' of the alleged injury. For the local governments, the court found that their claim of lost future tax revenue depended on uranium prices being high enough in 2032 to incentivize mining, which is a conjectural future injury. The court cited Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA and Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, noting that 'allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.' Regarding the water supply claim, the court noted the proclamation does not alter valid water rights, making the fear of future restriction speculative. For the Arizona Legislature, the court held that the proclamation did not strip the Legislature of its powers to manage state land, and a legislature suffers no cognizable injury from changes to future legislation. Furthermore, the Legislature and Treasurer could not assert the State's financial injuries because they were not designated agents to represent the State, a role reserved for the Attorney General under Arizona law. Finally, the court rejected the argument that diverting resources to address the proclamation created standing, citing La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest, which holds that a plaintiff cannot 'manufacture' an injury by simply choosing to spend money without showing a distinct injury that would occur otherwise.
The decision leaves the presidential proclamation establishing the national monument in place without judicial review of its merits. The dismissal means that the plaintiffs cannot challenge the proclamation's validity in federal court at this time. The ruling reinforces the high bar for establishing standing based on speculative future economic harms and clarifies that state legislative bodies and treasurers cannot represent the state's financial interests in federal court without specific designation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download