{
  "id": "R45718",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45718",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 598184,
      "date": "2019-05-15",
      "retrieved": "2019-05-15T22:19:05.442183",
      "title": "The Antiquities Act: History, Current Litigation, and Considerations for the 116th Congress",
      "summary": "Summary\nThe Antiquities Act authorizes the President to declare, by public proclamation, historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest situated on federal lands as national monuments. The act also authorizes the President to reserve parcels of land surrounding the objects of historic or scientific interest, but requires that the amount of land reserved be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. Since its enactment in 1906, Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to establish 158 monuments, reserving millions of acres of land in the process. Presidents have also modified existing monuments, whether by increasing or decreasing their size (or both), on more than 90 occasions.\nThough most monument proclamations have been uncontroversial, some have spurred corrective legislative action and litigation. Congress has twice imposed geographic limitations on the President\u2019s authority under the Antiquities Act in response to proclamations reserving millions of acres of land in Wyoming and Alaska. Litigants have also challenged the President\u2019s authority to establish certain monuments, disputing whether the historic or scientific objects selected for preservation were encompassed by the act, as well as whether the amount of land reserved exceeded the smallest area necessary for the objects\u2019 preservation. Courts, however, have uniformly rejected these challenges and adopted a broad interpretation of the President\u2019s authority under the Antiquities Act.\nNo President has purported to revoke a national monument, but past Presidents have reduced the size of existing monuments on 18 occasions. In 2017, President Trump issued proclamations reducing the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument. Various groups have sued to block these proclamations, arguing that the President exceeded his authority under the Antiquities Act. Because none of the prior proclamations diminishing monuments was challenged in court, these lawsuits offer the first opportunity for a court to decide whether the act empowers the President to diminish a national monument.\nThose challenging President Trump\u2019s proclamations argue that the Antiquities Act\u2019s authorization for the President to \u201cdeclare\u201d national monuments and \u201creserve\u201d surrounding lands does not include the distinct power to revoke or diminish an existing monument. They underscore this point by noting that, unlike the Antiquities Act, several contemporaneous public land laws expressly authorized the President to undo a prior reservation of land. The plaintiffs also highlight a number of 19th and early 20th century legal opinions from the executive branch concluding that the President lacks authority to undo a reservation of land absent express statutory authorization. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)\u2014which prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking a national monument established under the Antiquities Act\u2014demonstrates Congress\u2019s intent to consolidate modification power in the legislature.\nBy contrast, the United States argues that the requirement that reserved land be \u201cthe smallest area compatible\u201d with the preservation of the designated objects empowers the President to reduce the size of a monument when he determines that more land was reserved than necessary. The United States also contends that the Executive has implied authority to revisit prior discretionary decisions. Further, the United States argues that the President\u2019s authority to diminish monuments is confirmed by the 18 times past Presidents have done so and by several executive branch legal opinions that support this conclusion. Finally, the United States argues that FLPMA is irrelevant because that law prohibits the Secretary of the Interior, not the President, from diminishing monuments.\nWhile the President\u2019s authority to diminish a national monument has been questioned, there appears to be no dispute that Congress has authority to do so, a power it has exercised before. Several Members of Congress have introduced legislation either codifying or reversing President Trump\u2019s proclamations or placing limits on the President\u2019s authority under the Antiquities Act going forward.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45718",
          "sha1": "255cecc58b0f282128823a2ec23a2267bf4e6462",
          "filename": "files/20190515_R45718_255cecc58b0f282128823a2ec23a2267bf4e6462.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45718",
          "sha1": "c7f3892312f03f930e3357e4ec7bfd19c2cd290b",
          "filename": "files/20190515_R45718_c7f3892312f03f930e3357e4ec7bfd19c2cd290b.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Legislative Process"
  ]
}