Biden created Chuckwalla monument in California desert. A lawsuit aims to undo it.

Los Angeles Times - May 9th, 2025

A federal lawsuit has been filed aiming to reverse the designation of the Chuckwalla National Monument in Southern California, accusing President Biden of exceeding his authority under the Antiquities Act. The plaintiffs, supported by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, argue that the monument's 624,000-acre size far surpasses the intended scope of protection allowed by the Act, which mandates the smallest necessary area for monument designation. The suit, filed against the U.S. Department of the Interior, involves Michigan resident Daniel Torongo, whose mining operations could be affected, and the BlueRibbon Coalition, advocating for recreational access.

The context of this legal battle reflects a broader debate over presidential powers and public land protection. The Antiquities Act has historically been used to safeguard large areas, as seen with the Grand Canyon. However, this lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of using the Act for expansive designations, claiming it violates Congress's rights under the Property Clause. The case could ascend to the Supreme Court, potentially influencing future monument designations. Supporters argue for the monument's environmental and cultural protections, while opponents see it as federal overreach threatening personal and recreational land use interests.

Joe Biden Antiquities Act Federal Lawsuit Chuckwalla National Monument Public Lands Texas Public Policy Foundation Daniel Torongo Blue Ribbon Coalition Interior Department

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the Chuckwalla National Monument's designation and the subsequent legal challenge. It accurately presents key facts and legal arguments, although some claims require further verification. The article is balanced, offering perspectives from both supporters and opponents of the monument. However, it could benefit from more direct input from local stakeholders and independent experts to enhance source quality and engagement. The topic is timely and of significant public interest, with potential implications for environmental policy and presidential authority. Overall, the article is well-written and accessible, effectively informing readers about a complex and controversial issue.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate, presenting verifiable facts about the Chuckwalla National Monument's creation under President Biden, its size, and the legal challenge against it. The description of the monument's purpose, including protecting sacred tribal lands and wildlife habitats, aligns with official sources. However, some claims, such as the impact on mining and recreation, are based on the plaintiffs' perspectives and require further verification. The legal arguments regarding the Antiquities Act's limitations and constitutionality are accurately reported but remain unadjudicated. While the article accurately reflects the broader legal context, the contested significance of military sites needs further evidence.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of the plaintiffs, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and supporters of the monument. It includes statements from Janessa Goldbeck opposing the lawsuit and highlighting local support for the monument. However, it could have provided more voices from local stakeholders directly affected by the designation. The representation of the plaintiffs' arguments is detailed, but the article could have explored more deeply the historical use of the Antiquities Act to provide context.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey complex legal and environmental topics. It logically presents the sequence of events, from the monument's creation to the lawsuit's filing. The tone is neutral, and the information is presented in a way that is accessible to readers unfamiliar with the legal intricacies. However, some sections could benefit from additional context, particularly regarding the historical use of the Antiquities Act.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including legal filings and statements from involved organizations. However, it relies heavily on claims from the lawsuit and statements from interested parties like the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Vet Voice Foundation. The article does not provide independent verification of some claims, such as the specific impact on mining operations or the current state of military sites, which could affect the perceived impartiality.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the lawsuit and the monument's designation, but it lacks detailed disclosure of the methodology used to gather information. It does not explicitly address potential conflicts of interest, such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation's ideological stance. The basis for some claims, particularly regarding the impact on recreation and mining, is not fully transparent, relying on the plaintiffs' assertions without independent confirmation.