For decades, the federal government has relied on land exchanges to manage public lands, consolidate fragmented ownership, support local communities, protect valuable natural resources, improve public access, and advance other public interests.
Now, a Ninth Circuit decision threatens to make many of those exchanges more difficult—and potentially impossible.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
The case centers on a 713-acre parcel of federal land in Idaho located next to J.R. Simplot Company’s Don Plant, one of the nation’s largest phosphate-fertilizer facilities. Simplot has operated the plant near Pocatello for decades. The plant converts phosphate ore into fertilizer products used by American agriculture, while the process generates phosphogypsum that generally must be stored onsite.
The plant’s existing storage capacity is projected to be exhausted by 2031. Without additional land, the plant could face closure. The land exchange would provide enough space to extend the plant’s operating life to approximately 2085.
Under the exchange, the federal government transferred approximately 713 acres to Simplot and received approximately 826 acres of privately owned land in return. The acquired lands provide conservation, recreation, habitat, watershed, and public-access benefits.
The exchange was completed following an extended administrative process that included environmental analysis, public participation, appraisal, consultation, title review, and other legal and regulatory requirements. Federal law requires BLM to determine that an exchange serves the public interest and to satisfy numerous additional requirements before completing an exchange.
But the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes challenged the exchange, arguing that a federal law enacted in 1900 prevented the government from using the modern land-exchange authority Congress created in 1976.
The Ninth Circuit agreed.
The United States and J.R. Simplot have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision. Mountain States Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief supporting both petitions and urging the Supreme Court to grant review.
Why It Matters
At first glance, this case may look like a dispute over one parcel of land in Idaho. It is much bigger than that.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision could affect the federal government’s ability to manage and exchange millions of acres of land governed by similarly worded laws enacted more than a century ago.
The United States has identified at least 35 statutes covering more than 4 million acres of federally owned land across 14 states, including more than 2.4 million acres within the Ninth Circuit, that could be affected by the decision.
Those lands span Idaho, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, California, and Oregon.
The potential consequences extend far beyond one fertilizer plant. Land exchanges can facilitate:
- Energy development
- Mineral production
- Timber and grazing
- Transmission lines, pipelines, roads, and utility corridors
- Conservation and habitat protection
- Public access and recreation
- Cultural-resource protection
- Consolidation of fragmented or “checkerboard” land ownership
- Rural economic development
Land exchanges are an important tool for managing the West’s often-fragmented pattern of federal, state, tribal, and private ownership. They can allow the federal government to exchange isolated or difficult-to-manage parcels for lands with greater conservation, recreational, cultural, or administrative value.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision threatens that flexibility. Under the decision’s reasoning, BLM could satisfy the requirements of modern federal land law and still lack authority to complete an exchange because of a restriction contained in a much older statute.
That uncertainty can also undermine reliance on completed federal land-management decisions. Land exchanges can require years of planning, appraisal, environmental review, public participation, consultation, title work, and negotiation. Businesses, conservation organizations, local governments, landowners, and communities may invest substantial resources in reliance on those decisions.
A Century-Old Act vs. Modern Land Management
The dispute traces back to an agreement the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes made with the United States in 1898, which Congress ratified in 1900.
Under the agreement, the Tribes ceded the relevant lands to the United States in exchange for $600,000. The agreement preserved specified rights to hunt, fish, cut timber, and pasture livestock on the ceded lands. But those rights were expressly conditioned on the lands remaining part of the public domain.
The 1900 Act also specified the laws under which the ceded lands could be disposed of, including the homestead, townsite, stone and timber, and mining laws then governing federal land disposal.
Federal land policy changed dramatically over the following decades.
In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), creating a comprehensive framework for managing federal lands. FLPMA defines “public lands” broadly as land owned by the United States and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, “without regard to how the United States acquired ownership.” Congress expressly excluded only two categories: the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos.
The Fort Hall lands fall within FLPMA’s definition of public lands and do not fall within those two express exclusions. FLPMA also expressly authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to exchange public land for nonfederal land when the Secretary determines that the exchange will serve the public interest.
Yet the Ninth Circuit concluded that the 1900 Act prevents the federal government from using FLPMA’s later-enacted exchange authority for the ceded Fort Hall lands unless Congress specifically referred to the 1900 Act or the Fort Hall lands when it enacted FLPMA.
That interpretation is incorrect.
MSLF’s brief argues that the two statutes can—and should—be read together. The 1900 Act addressed the disposal methods available under the settlement-era legal framework. FLPMA later established a separate, comprehensive authority for exchanging BLM-administered public lands when the public interest is served. Giving effect to both statutes avoids creating a conflict that Congress did not enact.
The brief also argues that the Ninth Circuit’s approach effectively allows the Congress that enacted the 1900 Act to dictate how a future Congress must legislate. The Constitution does not require a later Congress to use “magic words” or specifically identify every older statute it intends a new law to affect. What matters is the law the later Congress actually enacted.
What’s at Stake for Idaho
The immediate consequences of the case are significant for Idaho.
The Don Plant produces more than one million tons of products annually and is one of the nation’s largest phosphate-fertilizer plants. If its existing phosphogypsum storage capacity is exhausted in 2031, the plant could face closure. The land exchange would allow operations to continue until approximately 2085.
The Interior Department estimates that the exchanged land will support approximately 3,763 jobs and contribute $768 million annually to Idaho’s economy.
Domestic fertilizer production also matters beyond Idaho. Fertilizer is a foundational agricultural input, and a reliable domestic supply affects farmers’ costs, food production, rural employment, and the nation’s resilience against disruptions in international mineral and fertilizer markets.
And the public would receive significant value in return. The United States acquired approximately 826 acres of private land with conservation, recreation, habitat, watershed, and public-access benefits.
The exchange illustrates why Congress gave BLM the authority to conduct land exchanges in the first place: to allow the government to evaluate competing uses, improve the federal estate, support responsible development, protect conservation values, and serve the public interest.
What MSLF Is Asking the Supreme Court to Do
MSLF supports the petitions filed by the United States and J.R. Simplot and asks the Supreme Court to grant review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
Ultimately, MSLF argues that the Court should clarify that:
- FLPMA applies to the ceded Fort Hall lands.
- The 1900 Act does not categorically prohibit a later-authorized FLPMA land exchange.
- Congress did not have to specifically name the 1900 Act or the Fort Hall lands when it enacted FLPMA.
- The Tribes’ retained rights should be enforced according to the terms and conditions of the agreement Congress ratified.
- Federal land exchanges remain an important tool for balancing development, conservation, public access, and community needs throughout the West.
The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether a century-old settlement-era statute can prevent the federal government from using a modern land-management authority that Congress enacted decades later.
For MSLF, the answer should be clear: Congress’s later laws should be given effect, federal land-management decisions should have predictable rules, and agreements with tribal nations should be honored according to the terms Congress actually ratified.
The future of responsible federal land management depends on clear rules, predictable laws, and respect for property rights. MSLF is asking the Supreme Court to uphold all three.