Biden created Chuckwalla monument in California desert. A lawsuit aims to undo it.

Los Angeles Times

09-05-2025

A lawsuit filed in federal court is seeking to undo the 624,000-acre Chuckwalla National Monument in the Southern California desert, claiming President Biden overstepped his authority by setting aside such a vast swath of land days before leaving office.
Plaintiffs represented by an Austin-based conservative think tank claim Biden abused the Antiquities Act, a 1906 law that allows presidents to create national monuments. The suit brought against the Interior Department highlights that the law mandates monuments be limited to the 'smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'
'If you look at the history, it was supposed to be limited to, let's say, 100 acres, maybe 1,000 acres. But it certainly wasn't the kind of expansion that we've seen in recent years,' said Matt Miller, senior attorney for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which filed the suit.
Supporters of Chuckwalla, which sits south of Joshua Tree National Park, point out that the law has long been used by presidents to protect large land masses — including the designation of the Grand Canyon by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. On Jan. 14, Biden created Chuckwalla to safeguard land sacred to tribes as well as important wildlife habitat and military sites.
On May 1, the foundation filed the suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a resident of the state with mining claims in the footprint of the monument and the BlueRibbon Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for recreation access.
According to the lawsuit, Daniel Torongo, whose family began mining in the region in 1978, and members of the BlueRibbon Coalition, will be prevented from using the land in ways they previously enjoyed because of the monument designation.
Torongo, of Brighton, Mich., will face onerous restrictions to maintaining his claim and will not be able to expand it as he planned, potentially threatening his retirement plan to spend more time mining there with his family, according to the suit.
'Although Mr. Torongo and his family have invested time and money in acquiring claims, equipment and relevant knowledge, the dream of expanding their operation beyond its current size is no longer possible,' the suit states.
BlueRibbon Coalition members, meanwhile, which include off-roaders and dirt bikers, fear they'll also face restrictions because of the 'goal of maintaining the undeveloped character of the land,' according to the suit.
The Interior Department hasn't yet responded to the suit and spokeswoman J. Elizabeth Peace said department policy is not to comment on litigation.
In a statement, she said the department 'reaffirms its unwavering commitment to conserving and managing the nation's natural and cultural resources, upholding tribal trust responsibilities and overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.'
Janessa Goldbeck, chief executive of Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit representing veterans, said the suit makes numerous false claims.
'We have a Texas special interest group representing a guy from Michigan trying to undo something that Californians love and fought for,' she said. 'So I think it's important that we see it for what it is, which is an ideological attempt by out-of-state special interests to sell off our public lands here in California.'
Goldbeck, a former U.S. Marine, pushed back on the suit's description of military sites protected by the designation, which includes a World War II-era training site established by Gen. George Patton to prepare troops to fight in the deserts of North Africa. The suit reports that 'all that remains of that facility is tank tracks and remnants of concrete fountains and rock-lined walkways.'
According to Goldbeck, you can still see the roads and foundations — including one bearing the handprint of the captain who built it. There's also a chapel with a pulpit that's still standing, she said.
'They clearly have not been out on the landscape,' she said. 'They don't understand why veterans and military families from across the political spectrum got together to advocate for the creation of the Chuckwalla National Monument.'
She added that the notion that recreation will be stymied is similarly untrue, and that hiking, authorized hunting, camping and more will still be allowed.
During his final week in office, Biden designated Chuckwalla along with Sáttítla Highlands National Monument, spanning more than 224,000 acres of pristine lakes and unique geological features near the Oregon border.
Even before the monuments were designated, there were fears they could be rolled back by the Trump administration.
During his first term, Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing. The Biden administration reversed the changes.
In early February, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order that many saw as opening the door to potentially eliminating or shrinking monuments. He directed his assistant secretaries to 'review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,' citing a federal statute corresponding to the law that allows presidents to create monuments.
Some believed California's young monuments were at most risk of being targeted, in part because Trump might seek to undo his predecessor's actions.
Then, a little over a month later, the Trump administration caused confusion when it issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla.
Whether presidents have the authority to alter monuments is unclear and hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump's previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled.
Miller, the attorney leading the recent litigation, said he believed it was possible the administration would not defend the suit brought against it.
The suit argues that the designation of Chuckwalla was an invalid use of the Antiquities Act, and also claims the Antiquities Act itself is unconstitutional.
Congress has the right to decide how federal property is used and disposed of, Miller said, citing what's known as the Property Clause of the Constitution. Congress can't give that right to the executive branch, according to the suit.
If the plaintiffs prevail, Chuckwalla's monument status will be nullified, Miller said.
In any case, Miller believes the losing side will appeal — and said it could end up before the Supreme Court. In 2021, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned how presidents have implemented the Antiquities Act to designate sprawling monuments and signaled the court might revisit the law in a future case.
'If it goes up that high, we hope this is that case,' Miller said.