Legal Battle Erupts Over Chuckwalla National Monument: Can Biden’s Monumental Decision Stand?
Lawsuit Challenges Chuckwalla National Monument Designation
Southern California — A federal lawsuit has been filed seeking to overturn the designation of the 624,000-acre Chuckwalla National Monument, established by President Joe Biden just days before he left office. The plaintiffs, represented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, argue that Biden overstepped his authority under the Antiquities Act, a law enacted in 1906 that allows presidents to create national monuments to protect significant natural and cultural resources.
The lawsuit, filed on May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, claims that the Antiquities Act mandates that monuments be confined to the "smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected." Matt Miller, a senior attorney for the foundation, stated, “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.”
Background on Chuckwalla National Monument
Located south of Joshua Tree National Park, Chuckwalla National Monument was designated on January 14, 2025, to protect land sacred to Indigenous tribes, vital wildlife habitats, and historical military sites. The monument’s creation was part of a broader effort by the Biden administration to safeguard significant landscapes, which also included the establishment of the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument, covering over 224,000 acres near the Oregon border.
Plaintiffs and Their Claims
The lawsuit is brought forth by Daniel Torongo, a Michigan resident with mining claims in the Chuckwalla area, and the BlueRibbon Coalition, a nonprofit advocating for recreational access. Torongo’s family has been mining in the region since 1978, and he argues that the monument designation imposes severe restrictions on his ability to maintain and expand his mining operations, jeopardizing his retirement plans.
The suit claims, “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.” Additionally, members of the BlueRibbon Coalition, which includes off-road enthusiasts, express concerns that their recreational activities will be curtailed due to the monument’s preservation goals.
Government Response and Broader Implications
The U.S. Department of the Interior has yet to respond to the lawsuit, with spokeswoman J. Elizabeth Peace stating that the department does not comment on ongoing litigation. However, she emphasized the department’s commitment to conserving natural and cultural resources while managing public lands for the benefit of all Americans.
Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit representing veterans, criticized the lawsuit as an ideological maneuver by out-of-state interests. She argued that the claims regarding military sites within the monument are misleading, asserting that significant remnants of historical military training facilities still exist and are valued by veterans and military families.
Historical Context and Future Considerations
The Antiquities Act has been utilized by various presidents to protect large tracts of land, including the Grand Canyon, designated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. However, the designation of expansive monuments has become contentious, particularly in light of previous administrations’ actions. The Trump administration notably reduced the boundaries of several national monuments, including Bear’s Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah.
In early February, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum initiated a review of all withdrawn public lands, raising concerns that the Biden-era monuments could be targeted for reduction or elimination. The legal landscape surrounding the Antiquities Act remains murky, with ongoing litigation challenging previous monument reductions still unresolved.
Miller, the attorney leading the current lawsuit, expressed skepticism about whether the Biden administration would defend the suit. He contends that the designation of Chuckwalla was an invalid use of the Antiquities Act and argues that the act itself may be unconstitutional, asserting that Congress should have the sole authority to regulate federal land use.
Potential Outcomes
If the plaintiffs succeed, the Chuckwalla National Monument could lose its protected status. However, Miller anticipates that any ruling will likely be appealed, potentially escalating the case to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has previously indicated interest in revisiting the Antiquities Act, suggesting that this case could have significant implications for the future of national monument designations.
As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of Chuckwalla National Monument hangs in the balance, reflecting broader tensions over land use, conservation, and federal authority in the United States.