Judges Block Republicans' Bid to Dismantle Grand Canyon National Monument

Arizona's legislative leaders cannot dismantle a new national monument near the Grand Canyon, federal appeals court rules.

Apr. 2, 2026 at 11:38am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal appeals court unanimously ruled that Republican legislative leaders in Arizona lacked standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the creation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni — Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument by President Joe Biden in 2023. The court agreed with a lower court ruling that the harms claimed by the legislators were speculative.

Why it matters

The creation of the new national monument near the Grand Canyon effectively bars mining on roughly one million acres of land, which Republican lawmakers in Arizona have criticized. The monument was designated in response to advocacy from Native American communities whose ancestral homelands are located in and near the Grand Canyon.

The details

The three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Senate President Warren Petersen, former House Speaker Ben Toma, and State Treasurer Kimberly Yee, all Republicans, lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because the harms they claimed the monument would cause were speculative. The court rejected the legislators' arguments that the monument would harm the state's economy, jobs, and sovereignty.

  • President Joe Biden designated the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni — Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in 2023.
  • The lawsuit was filed by Republican legislative leaders in Arizona in 2024.
  • The federal appeals court issued its ruling on Wednesday, April 2, 2026.

The players

Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni — Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument

A new national monument near the Grand Canyon that was designated by President Joe Biden in 2023, effectively barring mining on roughly one million acres of land.

Warren Petersen

Republican Senate President in Arizona who filed a lawsuit challenging the creation of the national monument.

Ben Toma

Former Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives who joined the lawsuit challenging the national monument.

Kimberly Yee

Republican State Treasurer of Arizona who joined the lawsuit challenging the national monument.

Kris Mayes

Democratic Attorney General of Arizona who intervened in the lawsuit to argue for the preservation of the national monument.

Katie Hobbs

Democratic Governor of Arizona who intervened in the lawsuit to argue for the preservation of the national monument.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Today's ruling is a victory for the people of Arizona and for the Indigenous communities whose ancestral homelands are protected by this monument. The court rejected every argument Senate President Warren Petersen, Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro, and Treasurer Kimberly Yee put forward. I am proud to have stood up to defend these sacred and important lands.”

— Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General

“It's sad to see the Ninth Circuit kicked the can down the road. Arizona families should not have to wait years while our land and economic opportunities remain locked up. We will continue fighting to protect Arizona's economy, jobs, and state sovereignty from this expansive federal land lock-up, including through any available avenues at the federal level. We are actively working with the Trump administration to undo this illegal land grab.”

— Warren Petersen, Arizona Senate President

What’s next

The Arizona Legislature has indicated it will continue fighting the creation of the national monument, including by working with the Trump administration to try to undo the designation.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal governments over the designation of national monuments, with Republican lawmakers in Arizona arguing the monument will harm the state's economy and sovereignty, while Democratic officials and Native American communities view it as a crucial protection of ancestral lands.