Tensions Rise as Gov. Hobbs Faces Off Against GOP Legislators over Controversial National Monument

PHOENIX— A significant legal conflict is unfolding between Governor Katie Hobbs and the Republican-controlled Legislature regarding the Biden administration’s designation of a new national monument in Arizona. This dispute centers on the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument.

Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McNamee dismissed claims from GOP leaders asserting that their conflict should be limited to the federal government. He emphasized that the interests of the governor and Attorney General Kris Mayes diverge from those represented by the U.S. Department of Justice. The federal attorneys aim solely to uphold the constitutionality of the president’s decision.

Hobbs and Mayes argue that they possess exclusive rights to challenge the monument’s creation on behalf of Arizona, distinguishing their role from that of the Legislature. Their legal stance is that the executive branch should ultimately determine if the monument’s establishment impacts surrounding state trust lands positively or negatively.

Interestingly, both Hobbs and Mayes support the president’s initiative. This support entitles them to actively participate in court proceedings to contest the legislators’ lawsuit. Depending on his assessment, McNamee could dismiss the case without delving into whether the president overstepped legal boundaries.

Legislators including Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed a lawsuit earlier this year, recognizing the Antiquities Act allows presidential designations. However, they assert that such designations should be limited to protecting historically significant sites and argue the current designation exceeds these bounds.

According to their lawsuit, the area designated, amounting to 1,462 square miles, violates the law’s stipulation for minimal area designation. Sawyer, a senior attorney in the Justice Department, insists that state lawmakers cannot claim standing in this federal matter and that Congress must have the final say on any presidential declaration.

In a historical context, the article mentions that President Wilson’s declaration of the Papago Saguaro National Monument was ultimately reversed by Congress in the 1930s, illustrating that such actions are not unprecedented. However, it remains to be seen if McNamee will adjudicate on the authority to overturn monument designations or strictly focus on the current arguments presented.

Hobbs and Mayes contend that the state attorney general is the rightful representative for legal actions involving state interests, undermining the legislators’ claims. They maintain that the governor’s previous support for the monument exemplifies the executive branch’s prerogative in state-federal relations.

While Judge McNamee permitted Hobbs and Mayes to present their arguments, he denied the Navajo, Hopi, and Havasupai tribes the opportunity to intervene, stating their interests align similarly with those of the federal government. Likewise, he rejected a motion from ten environmental groups to engage in the litigation.

No trial date has been established as this contentious case develops further, leaving stakeholders eagerly awaiting the judge’s decision on the matter.