A Response to 'Dismantling Monuments'

10 Pages Posted: 14 Feb 2019 Last revised: 31 Mar 2019

See all articles by John Ruple

John Ruple

University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law

Date Written: 2019


This article refutes the main arguments made in Dismantling Monuments, which recently appeared in the Florida Law Review. It shows that national monument designations have been used to protect large landscapes for more than a century, and that no legal challenge to a monument’s size has ever succeeded. It then explains why the weight of evidence suggests that Congress, in passing the Antiquities Act, intended to endow the President with the power to designate national monuments; but that Congress did not intend to vest the President with the power to dramatically reduce them. It also dispels notions that in reducing the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, President Trump was reducing them to the smallest area necessary to protect sensitive resources, and that history provides a precedent for these radical reductions.

Keywords: National Monuments, Antiquities Act

Suggested Citation

Ruple, John, A Response to 'Dismantling Monuments' (2019). 70 FLA. L. REV. F. __ (2019); University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 299. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3334196 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3334196

John Ruple (Contact Author)

University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law ( email )

383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
United States
801-581-6545 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics