• About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
Center for Art Law
  • About
    About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        Annual Conferences
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
Home image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Cultural Heritage image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Cropping Bears Ears
Back

Cropping Bears Ears

April 24, 2018

By Kat Moynihan

On December 28, 2016, five Southwestern Native American tribes achieved a momentous victory in protecting their cultural patrimony. President Obama created, via presidential proclamation and through the power designated to the President by the Antiquities Act of 1906 (the “Act”), the Bears Ears National Monument, a 1.35-million-acre site that protected areas of historical and spiritual importance to the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni Tribe, and Ute Indian Tribe of Northern Utah (collectively known as the “Bear Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition,” “Tribes,” or “Coalition”). The Coalition was consulted during the creation of the monument, and was even appointed as co-manager of the site, along with the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service. By the end of his two terms in office, President Obama has protected more land under the Antiquities Act than any other president, setting aside 88.3 million acres across 26 monuments, and adding 465.2 million acres to existing monuments.

However, the victory was short-lived. On December 4, 2017, President Donald Trump put forth his own proclamation to modify Bears Ears by eliminating 80% of the monument’s area. There was swift opposition from Native American tribes, environmental organizations, and recreation advocates. The Coalition, represented by the counsel from the Native American Rights Fund (Hopi, Pueblo Zuni, Ute Mountain Ute), the Navajo Nation Department of Justice (Navajo), and Fredericks Peebles & Morgan L.L.P. (Ute Indian), filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the President violated the Act, as it only authorizes the President to create monuments, not to eliminate or modify their parameters. On January 18, 2018, the federal government moved to change the venue to Utah District Court, which the Coalition has opposed.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 16.01.52
Source: Bears Ears Coalition

According to the complaint, the Coalition seeks to protect the estimated 100,000 cultural and archaeological sites within Bears Ears’ boundaries, including gravesites and ancient cliff dwellings. The Coalition fears that, if federal protection is removed, there will be a surge in looting, vandalism, and grave-robbing. Bears Ears and its surrounding area is also considered sacred to the Tribes for a variety of reasons. For example, the area holds “historic Navajo hogans and sweat lodges, Ute tipi rings, and Navajo and Ute rock art sites. . . .”[i] Bears Ears is also the birthplace of Navajo Headman Manuelito, who led the resistance against Navajo removal to Bosque Redondo, New Mexico and fought for the treaty that granted the Navajo return to their historical lands. The Navajo also believe the two iconic buttes, shaped like a bear’s ears, are a “shrine that protects the [Navajo].”[ii] These lands are still used for ceremonies today, and the Navajo and the Ute tribes regularly use the land to “collect herbs and medicine, forage for food, [] gather firewood for heating and ceremonial use, and to hunt game.”[iii]

The Antiquities Act

The Antiquities Act was signed into law on June 8, 1906, by President Theodore Roosevelt. While the Act was primarily created to stem the looting of Native American artifacts from archaeology sites, it would also cement Roosevelt’s reputation as a famed nature conservator.[iv] Under the Act, Congress authorizes the President to:

in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments . . . .[v]

However, these monuments (man-made or natural) must be “confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”[vi] Congress also retains the power to convert a national monument into a national park via an act of Congress.[vii] Typically, monuments are eventually converted into national parks. Since President Roosevelt’s tenure, more than fourteen presidents have designated 170 monuments. Use of the Act dropped off following the passage of the New Deal, which gave the National Park Service (“NPS”) the proper funding to carry out land conservation, and the passage of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, which gave greater federal protection to archaeological sites.

Trump’s reduction of the protected area would not be the first time that a president has used his discretion to crop a national monument: according to the National Park Service, there are eighteen instances of presidents reducing or redrawing the boundaries of a national monument.[viii] For example, in 1909, Roosevelt created Mount Olympus National Monument in Washington. During World War I, President Wilson halved the 600,000-acre-monument[ix] to allow access to timber for the war effort (the timber industry had opposed the monument since its creation).[x] Then, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt reduced the Grand Canyon National Monument in 1940 to appease ranchers’ demands for grazing land,[xi] reduced the Craters of the Moon National Monument in 1941 to allow for the “transfer of a strip of highway,“[xii] and reduced the Wupatki National Monument  in 1941 so a diversion dam could be constructed.[xiii] President Truman halved the Santa Rosa Island National Monument in 1945 to provide for lands to test guided missiles during World War II.[xiv] Additionally, President Eisenhower altered the size of the Glacier Bay National Monument[xv] in 1955, the Hovenweep National Monument[xvi] and the Great Sand Dunes National Monument[xvii] in 1956, and the Arches National Monument,[xviii] along with the Black Canyon of Gunnison National Monument,[xix] in 1960.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 16.02.01

Whereas the spirit of the Antiquities Act has been generally praiseworthy, there are also instances of tension created between the President and the States as a result the President’s invocation of the Act’s power. Ultimately, states feel slighted, and believe the Act allows the President to bypass State representatives and throw state’s needs to the wind. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew the ire of Wyoming when he created the Jackson Hole Monument. Senator Edward Robertson described the designation as a “foul, sneaking Pearl Harbor blow,”[xx] ranchers ran a cattle drive through the monument in defiance of the National Park Service, and Congress passed a bill to veto the monument – which Roosevelt then vetoed. Wyoming also filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Wyoming against the superintendent of the National Park Service, alleging the monument’s creation was illegal.[xxi] However, the court dismissed the case, holding that it was “a controversy between the legislative and executive branches of the Government in which . . . the Court cannot interfere.”[xxii] When Jackson Hole was added to Grand Teton Park, it resulted in the only amendment to the Antiquities Act, banning the creation of new monuments in Wyoming.[xxiii] Similarly, President Carter, who set aside 56 million acres of land across seventeen sites in Alaska, faced a substantial amount of opposition from Alaskans. At the time, many Alaskans depended on mining and oil drilling for their livelihoods, and felt these industries would be threatened by losing undeveloped land.[xxiv] They responded with protests and even went as far as burning President Carter’s effigy.[xxv] When Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed in 1980, a provision was included that barred use of the Antiquities Act to create substantial monuments in Alaska without Congress’ approval.

The Editing Process

On April 26, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13792, which called for the Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke to review all designations under the Antiquities Act made since January 1, 1996 with an area of more than 100,000 acres or where it is determined inadequate outreach and/or coordination with “State, tribal, and local officials and other relevant stakeholders” was done. Over a course of the year, in total, twenty-seven monuments were reviewed, and six were recommended for reduction. Among these six was Bears Ears, which, according to President Trump’s Presidential Proclamation Modifying Bears Ears National Monument, was considered “not limited to the smallest area compatible with the protection of the objects.” The Proclamation also declared that the majority of objects of scientific and historical importance in Bears Ears were sufficiently protected by preservation-related laws passed after the Antiquities Act. In place of the sprawling monument created by President Obama, President Trump has carved out two smaller monuments: Shash Jáa (211,983 acres) and Indian Creek (886, 477 acres). These cuts went into effect on February 2, 2018. President Trump has declared that the reduction was “necessary to restore state and local control.”[xxvi]

These new monuments, which represent 15% of the original Bears Ears Monument, have been formalized in H.R. 4532, sponsored by Representative John Curtis (R) of Utah. As of January 30, 2018, hearings have been held before the House Natural Resource Subcommittee on Federal Land. H.R. 4532 would create a seven-member Tribal Management Council for each monument, consisting of: an individual from the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture; three members of the Navajo Nation; one member from the White Mesa Utes of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; and two members from the San Juan County, Utah, Board of Commissioners. There is no mention of the Hopi Tribe, the Zuni Tribe, or the Ute Indian Tribe. The bill also creates an Archaeological Resources Protection Unit for each monument that consists of nine members appointed by the Management Council, including:

(A) [f]ive individuals with expertise in preserving Tribal relics, artifacts, or other sacred Tribal sites and objects[;] (B) [o]ne individual with expertise in the preservation of archaeological resources in federally protected areas[;] (C) [o]ne individual with expertise in protecting scenic and natural resources[;] [o]ne individual representing a scientific or educational institution in the State of Utah[;] [and] [o]ne individual with historic preservation expertise in the State of Utah.

There is no requirement for a representative of affected Native American tribes to be on the Unit. The Unit’s role is purely advisory; they primarily make recommendations to the Management Council. Both the Management Council and the Protection Unit are guided by the Bears Ears Commission, which was established under President Obama’s proclamation that created the monument in 2016. Additionally, ten law enforcement personnel will be assigned to each monument by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 16.02.10
Source: Backpacker

The Tribes have protested that H.R. 4532 provides only nominal protection and does not allow the Tribes to choose who would serve on the Management Council. Further, the bill “would nullify the tribes’ right to sue the federal government and render moot the other lawsuits defending Bears Ears.”[xxvii] Only one member of the Tribes has spoken in favor of the bill. During the House Committee hearings, Suzette Morris, of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Vice President of the Stewards of San Juan County, spoke against the monument designation. She stated that it uses “Native American people and culture to promote [the] area,” and that the land was better protected when it was not popularized among tourists.[xxviii] However, this testimony was swiftly dismissed by Morris’ tribe. Leland Begay, associate general counsel for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, stated that Morris was “not an elected official and did not have official authorization” to speak for the Tribe.[xxix] Morris’ testimony caused further exasperation as the Tribes saw the “handpicking of an unelected tribal member that serves the agenda of anti-monument special interest groups . . . [as a] violation of the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship” between Native American tribes and the U.S. government, and a political ploy on behalf of “anti-monument special interest groups.”[xxx]

All In Favor

The reduction of Bears Ears has been plagued by claims that it was done in order to open the land to the exploitation of natural resources such as uranium, gas, coal, oil, and grazing lands. Environmental watchdog groups have accused the federal government of giving into lobbying efforts from the uranium industry (as led by Energy Fuels). Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has stated that “there wasn’t one square inch [of land] removed from federal protection” and that reports of mining and drilling being the impulse behind the elimination are “nefarious and false.”[xxxi] Trump’s supporters have also pointed out that there is no oil or gas in Bears Ears, and that the price of uranium is so low there is no interest in opening new uranium mines.[xxxii]

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 16.02.17
Source: Gail Blinky, Four Corners Free Press

However, internal government documents from the Department of the Interior speak to the contrary. The documents were obtained by the New York Times following a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Interior Department in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2017. These documents reveal efforts by the Trump administration to review President Obama’s creation of new monuments.[xxxiii] The review process began with an order to determine what natural resources (coal, gas, oil, grazing, and hunting) have been put off limits and the economic data related to those resources.[xxxiv] Specifically, information was requested about uranium mills, grazing, and hunting in or around Bears Ears.[xxxv]

It should not be forgotten that, in Utah, 67% of the land is federally owned public land, a fact that has chafed the state’s population.[xxxvi] Another 6% of the land is held as federal trust lands.[xxxvii] The State is allowed to use these lands to earn revenue, which is then directed into state institutions such as public schools and hospitals.[xxxviii] Primarily, this revenue is created by selling mineral rights, renting, and allowing for mining and drilling for natural resources.[xxxix] In a speech at Utah’s State Capitol, Trump declared that he was “restor[ing] the rights of this land to your citizens.”[xl]

The Legal Forecast

As the Hopi case proceeds, several factors remain uncertain. Professor Mark Squillace of Colorado Law School has noted that the court must determine what standard of review will be used, and whether the case should be resolved “on the administrative record made to support the President’s decisions, or [if the] court[] [should] hold an evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether the proclamations are consistent with the requirements of the law[.]”[xli]

There are some indications that President Obama’s designation will prevail. If the court follows the precedent set by the Wyoming District Court in Wyoming v. Franke, it will utilize a limited scope of review and let the designation stand.[xlii] Additionally, the Franke court noted that if it “found sufficient ‘evidence of experts and others as to . . . objects of historic and scientific interest’,” it would have to uphold the decision.[xliii] As stated above, there is a vast number of Native American artifacts within Bears Ears’ original boundaries. Beyond Native American artifacts, this past February archaeologists discovered a new site of dinosaur fossils, which spans 63 meters, and which has been described as “the world’s richest cache[] of Triassic period fossils.”[xliv]

Professor Squillace has noted that President Trump will argue that his authority to shrink monuments is derived from his predecessors who have taken similar actions. However, Professor Squillace argues that:

Presidents lack the authority to modify or revoke monuments decisions issued by their predecessors. The basic argument is straightforward. The Property Clause of the Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over public lands. While the Antiquities Act may delegate power to the President to “reserve” public lands as national monuments, the Supreme Court has made clear that delegations of congressional power must be construed narrowly. And because the Antiquities Act says nothing of the authority to modify or revoke a reservation once made, the statute is properly construed to grant “one-way” authority.[xlv]

Squillace, who specializes in natural resources law, also points to the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Pickett Act of 1910, which authorized the president to withdraw public lands and specify that the president also has power to alter or eliminate that withdrawal.[xlvi] In 1976, the House Report on the final version of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act  “specifically reserve[d] to the Congress the authority to modify and revoke withdrawals for national monuments created under the Antiquities Act.”[xlvii]

Conclusion

Meanwhile, the Bears Ears case has been consolidated with a similar case brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council, also before the District Court for the District of Columbia, and also alleging President Trump’s actions were in violation of the Antiquities Act.[xlviii] While the arguments outlined above hint at possible positions the court may take, it is impossible to predict which way the court may rule. However, the general concern for the environment, current changes in the EPA notwithstanding, seem more advanced than it has ever been, and is sure to give the courts a perspective that prior challenges to the Antiquities Act have not seen.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 16.02.26
Source: Kristen Murphy, KSL

[i] Native American Connections, Bᴇᴀʀꜱ Eᴀʀꜱ Cᴏᴀʟ., http://bearsearscoalition.org/proposal-overview/ancestral-and-modern-day-land-users/ (last visited March 26, 2018).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] From 1906 to 1909, Roosevelt created eighteen national monuments, which set aside over one million acres of land. Some of the more notable monuments include: Chaco Canyon in New Mexico (1907); the Grand Canyon in Arizona (1908); and Mount Olympus in Washington (1909).

[v] The Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. § 431-433 (1906).

[vi] Id.

[vii] The primary difference between a park and a monument lies in the reason for its establishment. Where the creation of a monument is dependent on the presence of scientific or historic artifacts, parks are set aside for public use based on the site’s scenic, recreational, and/or educational value.

[viii]Catherine Lucey & Darlene Superville, Trump Scales Back 2 National Monuments in Utah, Drawing Praise and Protests, Cʜɪ. Tʀɪʙᴜɴᴇ (Dec. 4, 2017, 10:40 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-utah-national-monuments-20171204-story.html.

[ix] Olympic: Historic Resource Study, Nᴀᴛ’ʟ Pᴀʀᴋ Sᴇʀᴠ., https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/olym/hrs/appa.htm (last visited Apr. 8, 2018).

[x] In this case, President Wilson’s actions were met with widespread backlash, and Congress created the Olympic National Park in 1938 and expanded the protected area to nearly 900,000 acres.

[xi] Proclamation No. 2393, 3 C.FR. § 150 (1938-1943).

[xii] Craters of the Moon: Administrative History, Nᴀᴛ’ʟ Pᴀʀᴋ Sᴇʀᴠ., https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/crmo/adhi/appb.htm (last visited Apr. 8, 2018).

[xiii] Proclamation No. 2454, 3 C.F.R. § 208 (1938-1943).

[xiv] Proclamation No. 2659, 3 C.F.R. § 63 (1943-1948).

[xv] Proclamation No. 3089, 3 C.F.R. § 36 (1954-1958).

[xvi] Proclamation No. 3132, 3 C.F.R. § 70 (1954-1958).

[xvii] Proclamation No. 3138, 3 C.F.R. § 73 (1954-1958).

[xviii] Proclamation No. 3360, 3 C.F.R. § 83 (1959-1963).

[xix] Proclamation No. 3344, 3 C.F.R. § 74 (1959-1963).

[xx]132 – Veto of a Bill Abolishing the Jackson Hole National Monument, Tʜᴇ Aᴍᴇʀɪᴄᴀɴ Pʀᴇꜱɪᴅᴇɴᴄʏ Pʀᴏᴊᴇᴄᴛ, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16489 (last visited Apr. 8, 2018).

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] Id.

[xxiii] Mark Squillace, The Looming Battle Over the Antiquities Act, Hᴀʀᴠ. L. Rᴇᴠ. Bʟᴏɢ (Jan. 6, 2018), https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-looming-battle-over-the-antiquities-act/ (citing 54 U.S.C. § 320301(d)).

[xxiv] Carter Sets Aide 56 Million Acres of Alaska Lands, Tʜᴇ Wᴀꜱʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴ Pᴏꜱᴛ (Dec. 2, 1978), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/02/carter-sets-aside-56-million-acres-of-alaska-lands/c3d130ae-22d2-47e6-aacc-1ba1b0ef0348/?utm_term=.a4f26d8fb2c2.

[xxv] The National Parks: America’s Best Idea – Episode Six, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/history/ep6/5/ (last visited Apr. 4, 2018).

[xxvi]Matthew Renda, Environmentalists Decry Trump’s ‘Illegal’ Energy Plans for Public Lands, Cᴏᴜʀᴛʜᴏᴜꜱᴇ Nᴇᴡꜱ (Feb. 2, 2018), https://www.courthousenews.com/environmentalists-decry-trumps-illegal-energy-plans-for-public-lands/.

[xxvii] Terry Tempest Williams, From Utah’s Red Rock Desert, A Call for Protecting Our Public Lands, Yᴀʟᴇ Eɴᴠ’ᴛ 360 (Feb. 26, 2018), https://e360.yale.edu/features/from-utah-bears-ears-a-cry-for-protecting-our-public-lands-terry-tempest-williams.

[xxviii]David DeMille, Utah Republicans Advance Bill to Codify Elimination of Bears Ears Monument, Tʜᴇ Sᴘᴇᴄᴛʀᴜᴍ (Jan. 8, 2018, 12:18 PM), https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/09/utah-republicans-advance-bill-codify-elimination-bears-ears-national-monument/1016971001/.

[xxix] Jim Mimiaga, Ute Mountain Utes Blast Member’s Testimony Against Bears Ears, Tʜᴇ Dᴜʀᴀɴɢᴏ Hᴇʀᴀʟᴅ (Jan. 31, 2018, 5:48 PM), https://durangoherald.com/articles/206478.

[xxx] Id.

[xxxi] Matthew Renda, Zinke Trades Barbs With Protestors Over Shrunken Monuments, Cᴏᴜʀᴛʜᴏᴜꜱᴇ Nᴇᴡꜱ (Feb. 9, 2018), https://www.courthousenews.com/zinke-trades-barbs-with-protesters-over-shrunken-monuments/.

[xxxii] Valerie Volcovici, A Modern Land Run? Trump Move Opens Utah to Mining Claims Under 1872 Law, Rᴇᴜᴛᴇʀꜱ (Jan, 21, 2018, 7:08 AM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-utah-mining/a-modern-land-run-trump-move-opens-utah-to-mining-claims-under-1872-law-idUSKBN1FK1MA.

[xxxiii] Eric Lipton & Lisa Friedman, Oil Was Central in Decision to Shrink Bear Ears Monument, Emails Show, N.Y. Tɪᴍᴇꜱ (Mar. 2, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/climate/bears-ears-national-monument.html.

[xxxiv] Id.

[xxxv] Id.

[xxxvi] Frequently Asked Questions, Sᴛ. ᴏꜰ Uᴛᴀʜ Sᴄʜ. ᴀɴᴅ Iɴꜱᴛɪᴛᴜᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ Tʀ. Lᴀɴᴅꜱ Aᴅᴍɪɴ., https://trustlands.utah.gov/our-agency/faqs/#General (last visited Apr. 8, 2018).

[xxxvii] Id.

[xxxviii] Id.

[xxxix] What are Trust Lands?, Sᴛ. ᴏꜰ Uᴛᴀʜ Sᴄʜ. ᴀɴᴅ Iɴꜱᴛɪᴛᴜᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ Tʀ. Lᴀɴᴅꜱ Aᴅᴍɪɴ., https://trustlands.utah.gov/our-agency/what-are-trust-lands/ (last visited Apr. 8, 2018).

[xl] Remarks by President Trump on Antiquities Act Designations, Tʜᴇ Wʜɪᴛᴇ Hᴏᴜꜱᴇ (Dec. 4, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-antiquities-act-designations/.

[xli] Squillace, supra note 22.

[xlii] Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890, 896 (D. Wyo. 1945).

[xliii] Id. at 895-96.

[xliv] Pam Avery, Major Fossil Cache Found on Lands Cut from Bears Ears National Monument, Tʜᴇ Wɪʟᴅᴇʀɴᴇꜱꜱ Sᴏᴄ’ʏ (Feb. 22, 2018), https://wilderness.org/press-release/major-fossil-cache-found-lands-cut-bears-ears-national-monument.

[xlv] Squillace, supra note 22

[xlvi] Id.

[xlvii] Id.

[xlviii] Hopi Tribe et al v. Trump et al, PᴀᴄᴇʀMᴏɴɪᴛᴏʀ, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23151037/HOPI_TRIBE_et_al_v_TRUMP_et_al (last visited Apr. 8, 2018).

About the Author: Kat Moynihan is a Spring 2018 Legal Intern with the Center for Art Law. She is currently pursuing a dual degree at Rutgers University; she will earn her J.D. in May 2018 and her M.A. in Cultural Heritage and Preservation Studies in May 2019.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. Opinions expressed here are those of the author.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Post navigation

Previous Turkey Rules: Cultural Heritage Protection Efforts Explained
Next Victorious Youth: Ownership dispute over the “Getty Bronze” continues

Related Posts

logo

Unrest Against Gaddafi Spares Libya’s Roman Sites (for now)

March 1, 2011
logo

Digital Art as Cultural Heritage?

May 8, 2011

Do Modern Trends Require Us To Rethink Rules Governing Cultural Heritage?

March 31, 2011
Center for Art Law
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

The expansion of the use of collaborations between The expansion of the use of collaborations between artists and major consumer corporations brings along a myriad of IP legal considerations. What was once seen in advertisement initiatives  has developed into the creation of "art objects," something that lives within a consumer object while retaining some portion of an artists work. 

🔗 Read more about this interesting interplay in Natalie Kawam Yang's published article, including a discussion on how the LOEWE x Ghibli Museum fits into this context, using the link in our bio.
We can't wait for you to join us on February 4th! We can't wait for you to join us on February 4th!  Check out the full event description below:

Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law. 

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
Don't forget to grab tickets to our upcoming Collo Don't forget to grab tickets to our upcoming Colloquium, discussing the effectiveness of no strike designations in Syria, on February 2nd. Check out the full event description below:

No strike designations for cultural heritage are one mechanism by which countries seek to uphold the requirements of the 1954 Hague Convention. As such, they are designed to be key instruments in protecting the listed sites from war crimes. Yet not all countries maintain such inventories of their own whether due to a lack of resources, political views about what should be represented, or the risk of misuse and abuse. This often places the onus on other governments to create lists about cultures other than their own during conflicts. Thus, there may be different lists compiled by different governments in a conflict, creating an unclear legal landscape for determining potential war crimes and raising significant questions about the effectiveness of no strikes as a protection mechanism. 

Michelle Fabiani will discuss current research seeking to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of no strike designations as a protection mechanism against war crimes in Syria. Using data on cultural heritage attacks from the height of the Syrian Conflict (2014-2017) compiled from open sources, a no strike list completed in approximately 2012, and measures of underlying risk, this research asks whether the designations served as a protective factor or a risk factor for a given site and the surrounding area. Results and implications for holding countries accountable for war crimes against cultural heritage are discussed. 

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #culturalheritage #lawyer #legalreserach #artlawyer
Don't miss our up coming in-person, full-day train Don't miss our up coming in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law. 

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #research #lawyer #artlawyer #bootcamp #copyright #CLE #trainingprogram
In order to fund acquisitions of contemporary art, In order to fund acquisitions of contemporary art, The Phillips Collection sold seven works of art from their collection at auction in November. The decision to deaccession three works in particular have led to turmoil within the museum's governing body. The works at the center of the controversy include Georgia O'Keefe's "Large Dark Red Leaves on White" (1972) which sold for $8 million, Arthur Dove's "Rose and Locust Stump" (1943), and "Clowns et pony" an 1883 drawing by Georges Seurat. Together, the three works raised $13 million. Three board members have resigned, while members of the Phillips family have publicly expressed concerns over the auctions. 

Those opposing the sales point out that the works in question were collected by the museum's founders, Duncan and Marjorie Phillips. While museums often deaccession works that are considered reiterative or lesser in comparison to others by the same artist, the works by O'Keefe, Dove, and Seurat are considered highly valuable, original works among the artist's respective oeuvres. 

The museum's director, Jonathan P. Binstock, has defended the sales, arguing that the process was thorough and reflects the majority interests of the collection's stewards. He believes that acquiring contemporary works will help the museum to evolve. Ultimately, the controversy highlights the difficulties of maintaining institutional collections amid conflicting perspectives.

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more.
Make sure to check out our newest episode if you h Make sure to check out our newest episode if you haven’t yet!

Paris and Andrea get the change to speak with Patty Gerstenblith about how the role international courts, limits of accountability, and if law play to protect history in times of war.

🎙️ Click the link in our bio to listen anywhere you get your podcasts!
Alexander Butyagin, a Russian archaeologist, was a Alexander Butyagin, a Russian archaeologist, was arrested by Polish authorities in Warsaw. on December 4th. Butyagin is wanted by Ukraine for allegedly conducting illegal excavations of Myrmekion, an ancient city in Crimea. Located in present-day Crimea, Myrmekion was an Ancient Greek colony dating to the sixth century, BCE. 

According to Ukrainian officials, between 2014 and 2019 Butyagin destroyed parts of the Myrmekion archaeological site while serving as head of Ancient Archaeology of the Northern Black Sea region at St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum. The resulting damages are estimated at $4.7 million. Notably, Russia's foreign ministry has denounced the arrest, describing Poland's cooperation with Ukraine's extradition order as "legal tyranny." Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014.

🔗 Read more by clicking the link in our bio

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artcrime #artlooting #ukraine #crimea
Join us on February 18th to learn about the proven Join us on February 18th to learn about the provenance and restitution of the Cranach painting at the North Carolina Museum of Art.

A beloved Cranach painting at the North Carolina Museum of Art was accused of being looted by the Nazis. Professor Deborah Gerhardt will describe the issues at stake and the evidentiary trail that led to an unusual model for resolving the dispute.

Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #legalresearch #museumissues #artwork
“In the depth of winter, I finally learned that wi “In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."
~ Albert Camus, "Return to Tipasa" (1952) 

Camus is on our reading list but for now, stay close to the ground to avoid the deorbit burn from the 2026 news and know that we all contain invincible summer. 

The Center for Art Law's January 2026 Newsletter is here—catch up on the latest in art law and start the year informed.
https://itsartlaw.org/newsletters/january-newsletter-which-way-is-up/ 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #lawyer #artlawyer #legalresearch #legal #art #law #newsletter #january
Major corporations increasingly rely on original c Major corporations increasingly rely on original creative work to train AI models, often claiming a fair use defense. However, many have flagged this interpretation of copyright law as illegitimate and exploitative of artists. In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Crime and Counterterrorism addressed these issues in a hearing on copyright law and AI training. 

Read our recent article by Katelyn Wang to learn more about the connection between AI training, copyright protections, and national security. 

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more!
Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, all- Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, all-day  CLE program to train lawyers to work with visual artists and their unique copyright needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys specializing in copyright law.

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools. 

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
Our interns do the most. Check out a day in the li Our interns do the most. Check out a day in the life of Lauren Stein, a 2L at Wake Forest, as she crushes everything in her path. 

Want to help us foster more great minds? Donate to Center for Art Law.

🔗 Click the link below to donate today!

https://itsartlaw.org/donations/new-years-giving-tree/ 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #legalresearch #caselaw #lawyer #art #lawstudent #internships #artlawinternship
  • About the Center
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Upcoming Events
  • Internship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
DISCLAIMER

Center for Art Law is a New York State non-profit fully qualified under provision 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Center does not provide legal representation. Information available on this website is
purely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY

Your use of the Site (as defined below) constitutes your consent to this Agreement. Please
read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy carefully.

© 2026 Center for Art Law
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.