Consider, for example, a 1915 "memorialization" resolution from the Utah Senate to the President, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives exclaiming Utah's understanding that the federal government had made a promise to dispose of the public lands it acquired when Utah became a state.  That statement, titled Senate Joint Memorial 4, read, in part:

In harmony with the spirit and letter of the land grants to the National government, in perpetuation of a policy that has done more to promote the general welfare than any other policy in our national life, and in conformity with the terms of our Enabling Act, we, the members of the Legislature of the State of Utah, memorialize the President and the Congress of the United States for the speedy return to the former liberal National attitude toward the public domain, and we call attention to the fact that the burden of State and local government in Utah is borne by the taxation of less than one-third the lands of the State, which alone is vested in private or corporate ownership, and we hereby earnestly urge a policy that will afford an opportunity to settle our lands and make use of our resources on terms of equality with the older states, to the benefit and upbuilding of the State and to the strength of the nation.

Several similar resolutions have issued across the years from other states with arguments based on their compacts and agreements with the federal government where the states believed the federal government has a fiduciary or contractual duty to dispose of its land ownership.

In their claims, many states asserted that the original and longstanding policies in the United States were dedicated to the disposition (not retention) of federal lands,and these states have been concerned when paradigmatic shifts toward retention (and against disposal) seemed to begin.

Across the 20th century, there were increasing legislative and regulatory movements toward federal retention of public lands, in many ways critically culminating in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ("FLPMA") which ultimately provided that "Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless . . . it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest."  As Rasband notes regarding the gradual shift in public lands policy, "The move toward reservation of public lands . . . was a substantial change in public lands policy.  Nevertheless these reservations can still be understood as exceptions to the still prevailing idea that the public lands were largely intended for disposition to private owners."

A variety of legal maneuvers were tried by states and others during this period to diminish federal control over public lands, although none looked exactly like the Transfer of Public Lands Act (TPLA).  For example, while Nevada passed a law declaring ownership of certain federal lands and while that law was invalidated by a federal district court, the TPLA does not "declare" that Utah owns land and makes no effort to take land away from the federal government. Instead, the TPLA merely articulates the federal government's duty to dispose and demands that it comply.

It is imperative that we understand our history and our laws if we are to maintain the sovereignty of our states.  For this reason, we continue to ask you to send the  White Paper, commissioned by the Federalist Society, to all of your county, city and state attorneys, legal advisors and government affairs personnel, as well as your elected officials and ask for their review, commentary and feedback. 

Federalist Society White Paper

Executive Summary of Federalist Society White Paper