10th Cir.

Garfield County, Utah, et al. v. Trump, et al.

June 23, 2026 ·4:22-CV-00059-DN ·Panel Decision ·Carson · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court dismissal, holding that federal courts may review presidential actions under the Antiquities Act when plaintiffs allege the President exceeded statutory limits. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the President's designation of national monuments and land reservations exceeded his delegated authority.

Background

Plaintiffs, including Utah, its counties, and various individuals and groups, challenged President Biden’s proclamations expanding the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. They argued the President exceeded his authority under the Antiquities Act by designating objects not qualifying as historic or scientific and by reserving land far larger than the smallest area compatible with protection. The district court dismissed the suit based on sovereign immunity and lack of standing.

The court’s reasoning

The court reasoned that while the President has discretion to declare national monuments, the Antiquities Act imposes discernible limits on what objects qualify and the size of the reservation. The ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity permits suits when an official acts outside the powers delegated by Congress. The court rejected the argument that the statute commits all decisions to presidential discretion, noting that courts have a role in interpreting statutory limits. The district court’s requirement that plaintiffs allege a total lack of authority was deemed untenable; plaintiffs need only allege the President acted beyond the specific statutory constraints.

What it means going forward

The decision opens the door for judicial review of presidential national monument designations under the Antiquities Act, allowing challenges based on statutory limits rather than requiring a showing of total lack of authority.