Judge rejects challenge to national monument near Grand Canyon. Will Trump step in?
A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit by Arizona lawmakers challenging former President Joe Biden's designation of a national monument near the Grand Canyon.
The dismissal of a case brought by legislative Republicans and backed by Mohave County shifts attention to Washington, where many on both sides of the issue expect that President Donald Trump may shrink or rescind the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. At issue is the prospect of renewed uranium prospecting in the region northwest of Flagstaff and south of Kanab, Utah.
'We are reviewing this ruling and will likely file an appeal,' Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen said in a written response to questions. 'We are confident this unconstitutional land grab will be reversed, either by the courts or by the Trump Administration.'
Trump has a history of downsizing national monuments created by Democratic predecessors, having done so in his first term to the Clinton-designated Grand Staircase-Escalante and the Obama-designated Bears Ears national monuments, both in southern Utah. Biden restored protections in both cases after defeating Trump in 2020.
Environmental and tribal groups lauded the decision and said they'll guard against further efforts to undo the land protections. Polling recently released by the Grand Canyon Trust indicated that a substantial majority of Arizonans, including Republicans, favor the monument.
'The public supports this iconic monument and the wisdom of the Tribes who proposed and fought for it,' Center for Biological Diversity Southwest Director Taylor McKinnon said in an email. 'Any further attacks from uranium industry surrogates or opponents of public lands will be wildlife unpopular and meet fierce resistance.'
The Native American Rights Fund released a statement saying that tribes including its clients, the Havasupai and Hopi, 'celebrated the court's decision, which maintains protections for a culturally significant region that was taken away from Tribal Nations.'
Lawmakers are joined by county, rancher
Petersen and then-House Speaker Ben Toma filed the suit against the Biden administration to undo the roughly 1 million-acre monument designation on federal lands north and south of Grand Canyon. They, along with Treasurer Kimberly Yee, Mohave County and the towns of Colorado City and Fredonia, argued that the monument harmed the state and local governments by restricting potential uranium mining revenues and complicating state efforts to develop State Trust Lands in the area.
A rancher also joined the case, arguing that the new land protections could jeopardize normal ranch operations such as pond maintenance or tree removals on leased lands.
Senior Judge Stephen McNamee of the U.S. District Court of Arizona on Monday ruled that none of the plaintiffs have standing to sue, as only the state's executive branch can sue on behalf of the State Land Department. In ruling against the rancher's claim, he added that the monument designation specifically authorized the continued leasing of grazing rights on the land.
The governor and attorney general, both Democrats, had declined to join the lawsuit and said the lawmakers overstepped their authority.
Biden traveled to Red Butte, some 10 miles from the south entrance to Grand Canyon National Park, to announce the new monument in the summer of 2023. The protections he imposed through his powers under the Antiquities Act were meant to honor numerous tribes' links to the area and to make permanent a 20-year moratorium against uranium mining that the Obama administration had imposed on roughly the same lands in 2012.
At that ceremony, 6 miles from a uranium mine approved previously and not subject to the new protections, Havasupai officials rejoiced. Their reservation, at the edge of Grand Canyon, includes springs they fear may become contaminated by groundwater flowing from mined areas.
Tribes fear contamination of land, water
Energy Fuels Resources, the company that operates the Pinyon Plain Mine, has said that isn't a risk, while U.S. Geological Survey researchers have said they need more information about groundwater flows.
When the Grand Canyon Trust released its poll findings this month, Havasupai Chairwoman Bernadine Jones said she had heard rumblings of the incoming Trump administration's plans and feared they would include a monument reversal and renewed uranium prospecting. The protected lands are where her ancestors lived in winter before returning to the canyon for summer, she said, and remain sacred.
Coconino County contains the largest share of the new monument, and Patrice Horstman, vice-chair of the Board of Supervisors, said it strongly supports the monument. The county and its population base in Flagstaff rely on tourism and outdoor recreation, she said. 'This monument is an asset to our economy and it protects our lands and waters.'
Energy Fuels, the uranium miner, was not a party to the lawsuit but did criticize Biden's action in 2023 as counter to another of its stated goals: producing carbon-free energy.
On Wednesday, company spokesman Curtis Moore said Energy Fuels 'supports protecting public lands where appropriate' but that monument designations with seemingly arbitrary boundaries that 'expand and shrink and expand once again' depending on who is president, make it difficult for companies to plan investments or for agencies to manage the land.
'The uranium mining we perform is the first step in the nuclear fuel cycle for zero-emission baseload energy that appears to be the resource of choice to support growing energy needs, including the staggering amount of energy expected to be needed for data centers, AI, and other technologies,' Moore said. 'Resource development takes investment and long-term planning, so we are directly impacted by constant changes.'
Mohave County contains about 350,000 acres of the monument and had argued that Biden overreached in designating the monument, possibly costing the county jobs and tax revenues from mine development. County Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter said a judge's ruling that plaintiffs lack standing 'is the most political way for a judge to avoid taking on an issue.'
The plaintiffs are reviewing their options, Lingenfelter said.
'The goal has always been to get this issue concerning abuse of the Antiquities Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for their review,' he said, 'so I would not rule out seeing this appealed by the Arizona Legislature, Mohave County, and affected northern Arizona communities.'
Brandon Loomis covers environmental and climate issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. Reach him at brandon.loomis@arizonarepublic.com.
Environmental coverage on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at environment.azcentral.com and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
31 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head from close range during a rally at the weekend. In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions, that included brain surgery, following the assassination attempt that has had a chilling effect on the South American nation. Uribe was shot on Saturday as he addressed a small crowd of people who had gathered in a park in Bogota's Modelia neighborhood. On Sunday hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital where Uribe is being treated to pray for his recovery. Some carried rosaries in their hands, while others chanted slogans against President Gustavo Petro. 'This is terrible' said Walter Jimenez a lawyer who showed up outside the hospital, with a sign calling for Petro's removal. 'It feels like we are going back to the 1990's,' he said, referring to a decade during which drug cartels and rebel groups murdered judges, presidential candidates and journalists with impunity. Petro has condemned the attack and urged his opponents to not use it for political ends. But some Colombians have also asked the president to tone down his rhetoric against opposition leaders. The assassination attempt has stunned the nation, with many politicians describing it as the latest sign of how security has deteriorated in Colombia, where the government is struggling to control violence in rural and urban areas, despite a 2016 peace deal with the nation's largest rebel group. The attack on Uribe comes amid growing animosity between Petro and the Senate over blocked reforms to the nation's labor laws. Petro has organized protests in favor of the reforms, where he has delivered fiery speeches referring to opposition leaders as 'oligarchs' and 'enemies of the people." 'There is no way to argue that the president… who describes his opponents as enemies of the people, paramilitaries and assassins has no responsibility in this' Andres Mejia, a prominent political analyst, wrote on X. The Attorney General's office said a 15-year-old boy was arrested at the scene of the attack against Uribe. Videos captured on social media show a suspect shooting at Uribe from close range. The suspect was injured in the leg and was recovering at another clinic, authorities said. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez added that over 100 officers are investigating the attack. On Monday, Colombia's Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo said that minors in Colombia face sentences of up to eight years in detention for committing murders. Camargo acknowledged that lenient sentences have encouraged armed groups to recruit minors to commit crimes. However, she said that Colombian law also considers that minors who are recruited by armed groups are victims, and is trying to protect them. 'As a society we need to reflect on why a minor is getting caught up in a network of assassins, and what we can do to stop this from happening in the future' she said.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
