Arizona GOP considers next move in Grand Canyon area suit

The Center Square) - Arizona Republicans are mulling their options after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in a lawsuit challenging a 917,000-acre national monument near Grand Canyon National Park. The court threw out a legal challenge last week to a monument former President Joe Biden created in 2023. The monument protects federal land surrounding the park to honor the ancestral homelands of local Native American tribes. The 9th Circuit court dismissed the case because judges found the plaintiffs lacked legal standing. The plaintiffs are state Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert; House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Surprise; State Treasurer Kimberly Yee, a Republican; Mohave County; Colorado City; and the city of Fredonia. This ruling upholds a decision by a U.S. district court in Arizona, which rejected the plaintiffs' original legal challenge in January 2025. Petersen said it was "sad to see the 9th Circuit kicked the can down the road." "The court did not address whether the Biden administration had the right to create this massive national monument around the Grand Canyon. It simply ruled that our challenge came too soon," Petersen told The Center Square, answering questions by email. "Arizona families should not have to wait years while our land and economic opportunities remain locked up," he added. Petersen said state Republicans "will continue fighting to protect Arizona's economy, jobs, and state sovereignty from this expansive federal land lock-up, including through any available avenues at the federal level." He noted the plaintiffs "are actively working with the Trump administration to undo this illegal land grab." In their legal challenge, the plaintiffs argued creating the national monument would cause local governments to lose tax revenue from uranium mining that could take place once the 2012 mining ban expired in 2032. The 9th Circuit judges said this reasoning was too "speculative" as to "whether the right economic conditions and incentives for uranium mining will exist so far into the future." Colorado City alleged the new monument could restrict its water supply because it draws water from an aquifer located on land within the monument. The judges said the national monument proclamation does not change water rights or restrict the city's water access. The Arizona Legislature said the monument impeded its ability to rule over state land. However, the 9th Circuit court noted the Legislature still had control over state land and that the monument affects only federal land. The plaintiffs also said state land near the monument would lose value and create less revenue. But the judges dismissed the argument. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged the national monument would raise energy prices in the future, but the court noted this reasoning depended on "many unknown variables." "Any future economic harm from higher energy prices caused by the Proclamation is accordingly far too speculative to support standing," the judges wrote. Kris Mayes, Arizona's attorney general, said the ruling was a "victory for the people of Arizona and for the Indigenous communities whose ancestral homelands are protected by this monument." The Democrat, who was an intervener in the case, added she was "proud to have stood up to defend these sacred and important lands."