Outdoor retailer Patagonia, several Native American tribes, and environmental organizations filed lawsuits on Wednesday, September 2, to challenge executive orders from the Trump administration that reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah. The legal filings in the U.S. District Court in Washington seek to reopen and supplement two lawsuits originally initiated in 2017. The plaintiffs are contesting the legality of President Donald Trump’s recent proclamations regarding the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.
The legal dispute follows years of changes to the boundaries of these federal lands. President Trump first ordered the reduction of these monuments in 2017, a move that was subsequently challenged in court but never reached a final judgment. In October 2021, President Joe Biden issued a proclamation that restored the original boundaries and added approximately 11,200 acres to Bears Ears. However, on July 13, 2026, President Trump signed new orders that again reduced the size of both monuments.
According to the legal filings, the July 13 orders reduced the protected acreage of the monuments by more than 90 percent. The plaintiffs, which include the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), argue that the 1906 Antiquities Act grants presidents the authority to create monuments but does not permit them to abolish or significantly reduce them. Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert stated that the reduction betrays tribal sovereignty and dismantles years of co-management efforts.
The scale of the reduction involves millions of acres of federal land in southeastern Utah. In 2017, the administration’s actions were reported to have cut Bears Ears by roughly 85 percent; the 2026 orders are described in the lawsuits as gutting the monuments by more than 90 percent. For the general public, this means a shift in land status from protected monument status to land that could be leased to private companies for resource extraction. If the reductions stand, developers and extraction companies could notice a change in access to these territories for industrial use, while recreationists and tribal members would see a decrease in federally protected zones.
This case sets a significant legal precedent regarding the limits of executive power under the Antiquities Act. A final court ruling would clarify whether a president has the legal authority to revoke or substantially shrink monument protections established by predecessors, or if such actions require an act of Congress. Currently, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen the cases and submit a second amended and supplemental complaint. The White House has not yet provided a public response to these specific filings, and no court date for a hearing has been scheduled.