• A lawsuit has been filed challenging the legality of President Biden's creation of the Chuckwalla National Monument in Southern California.
• The lawsuit argues that Biden overstepped his authority under the Antiquities Act by designating such a large area as a national monument.
• Supporters of the monument contend that it protects valuable tribal lands, wildlife habitats, and historical military sites, while critics claim it restricts access for mining and recreation.

A legal challenge has emerged against the Chuckwalla National Monument, a 624,000-acre protected area in Southern California established by President Biden. The lawsuit, filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation on behalf of a Michigan resident with mining claims and the BlueRibbon Coalition, alleges that the monument designation exceeds the authority granted by the Antiquities Act. This legal battle raises questions about the scope of presidential power in designating national monuments and its potential impact on land use, recreation, and resource management in the region.

• What: A lawsuit challenging the designation of the 624,000-acre Chuckwalla National Monument.
• Who: Plaintiffs: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Daniel Torongo, BlueRibbon Coalition. Defendants: U.S. Department of the Interior, President Biden. Supporters: Vet Voice Foundation, Janessa Goldbeck.
• When: Monument designated on January 14, 2025. Lawsuit filed on May 1, 2025.
• Where: Chuckwalla National Monument in Southern California, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The lawsuit against the Chuckwalla National Monument raises significant legal and political questions. The central issue revolves around the scope of the Antiquities Act and whether President Biden exceeded his authority in designating such a large area. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the future of national monument designations and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in managing federal lands. The arguments presented by both sides highlight the diverse interests at stake, including conservation, recreation, resource extraction, and tribal rights.

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.

We have a Texas special interest group representing a guy from Michigan trying to undo something that Californians love and fought for. 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.

The legal battle surrounding the Chuckwalla National Monument highlights the ongoing tension between conservation efforts, presidential authority under the Antiquities Act, and competing land-use interests. The lawsuit, spearheaded by a Texas-based group representing a Michigan miner, argues that the monument's designation oversteps presidential power and unduly restricts access for mining and recreation. Supporters of the monument, including veteran groups and Native American tribes, emphasize its importance for preserving cultural heritage, protecting biodiversity, and providing recreational opportunities. The court's decision will not only determine the fate of the Chuckwalla National Monument but also set a crucial precedent for future monument designations and the management of public lands, potentially influencing the balance between presidential power and local interests in the American West. Given Chief Justice Roberts' past concerns about the scope of the Antiquities Act, the case could reach the Supreme Court, adding another chapter to the long-standing debate over the appropriate use of this law and the extent of executive authority in land management. The outcome will likely shape the future of conservation and land use policy, influencing how the nation balances preservation, economic development, and recreational access on public lands for years to come.