Joint house resolution supporting Utah in their land lawsuit against the United States
Summary
House Joint Resolution 24 is a nonbinding legislative resolution expressing Montana’s support for Utah’s effort to challenge the federal government’s continued retention of unappropriated public lands. The resolution adopts Utah’s argument that the federal policy in 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(1) is unconstitutional because it allows the United States to hold large areas of land in perpetuity rather than disposing of them, and it frames that policy as an infringement on state sovereignty and equal statehood. It also recites Utah’s litigation history, including Utah’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court’s denial of leave to file the complaint.
The resolution specifically states that the federal government owns about 30% of Montana’s land, including roughly 8 million acres of unappropriated land, and declares that this federal land policy denies Montana equal representation and unconstitutionally deprives the state of sovereignty. It urges Utah to continue pursuing its lawsuit by filing in federal district court and directs the Secretary of State to send copies of the resolution to state, federal, and judicial officials. As a resolution, HJ 24 does not itself change Montana statutes or regulate land use; its legal effect is symbolic and political, not operative law.
The general sentiment in the bill text is strongly supportive of state control over federal lands and critical of federal land retention. The resolution presents the issue as a constitutional imbalance that harms Montana and other western states, and it aligns Montana with a broader multi-state and multi-organization effort opposing federal ownership of large land areas. The vote history shows some initial support in committee, with the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee advancing it 8-6.
However, the bill ultimately failed on the House floor, where it did not pass second reading by a vote of 34-65. That outcome suggests substantial opposition, likely centered on the resolution’s constitutional claims, its challenge to longstanding federal land management policy, and concerns about the practical or legal implications of endorsing Utah’s lawsuit. The bill died in process and therefore did not become an adopted expression of the Legislature’s position.
Impact
HJ 24 would not amend Montana’s statutes or directly alter land ownership, taxation, or management authority. Its effect is limited to a formal legislative statement supporting Utah’s constitutional challenge to federal retention of unappropriated public lands and urging further litigation. If adopted, it would have served as an official political endorsement of a legal theory that could affect federal land policy and state-federal relations, but it would not itself change the legal status of federal lands in Montana or Utah.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill is strongly pro-state sovereignty and anti-federal land retention. The resolution’s findings portray federal ownership of large land areas as unconstitutional and harmful to Montana’s equality and authority, and it expresses solidarity with Utah’s lawsuit. The committee vote indicates some support within the House committee, but the decisive floor defeat shows that the broader chamber was not persuaded, or was at least unwilling to endorse the resolution’s constitutional and policy claims.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the federal government may lawfully retain large amounts of unappropriated public land within a state, or whether doing so violates the Constitution and state sovereignty. Supporters of the resolution argue that perpetual federal ownership diminishes Montana’s equal statehood, limits taxation and eminent domain powers, and improperly expands federal authority. Opponents likely objected to the resolution’s constitutional premise, its invitation to support litigation against the United States, and the broader policy implications of challenging federal land management. The floor vote suggests those objections prevailed.