• 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
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 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
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 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 Our articles 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 Art Law Articles

word image 75296 1
Art lawCultural Heritage

Beyond “Due Diligence”: Closing Loopholes in the Global Antiquities Trade

October 9, 2025
CfAL cultural heritage India article 1
Art lawCultural Heritage

Spotlight: India Pride Project and the Future of Art Restitution in India

September 19, 2025
The Parthenon Marbles displayed at the British Museum (photograph taken by author on Jan. 21, 2023)
Art lawCultural Heritage

Repatriation in Context: The Case for Cooperation

April 14, 2025
Center for Art Law
August 2026 Summer Promo (2)

Get your leg up on art law

Just in time for 2026-2027

Become a member and access unlimited articles, our Case Law Database, event archives, and exclusive member pricing on all upcoming events.

Learn MORE
Immigration Guide for Artists 2026 Cover Page

Immigration Guide for Artists

Check out the 2026 overview of U.S. immigration pathways available to artists.

Learn MORE
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

The rapid rise of digital reconstruction has trans The rapid rise of digital reconstruction has transformed how cultural heritage is documented and preserved, particularly in regions affected by conflict. As 3D models and digital archives become more common, they also raise questions about ownership and cultural self-determination.

In her article, Jacqueline Koutrodimos-Lewis examines the preservation of Syria's cultural heritage. More specifically, how digital reconstructions can both protect endangered sites and act as a tool for erasure when local communities are excluded from the process.

📚 Click the link in our bio to read the complete article by Jacqueline Koutrodimos-Lewis!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #culturalheritage #digitalheritage #3Dreconstruction #provenance #archaeology #culturalproperty #digitization #palmyra #museumlaw
Recently our intern Hannah Gadway was able to go t Recently our intern Hannah Gadway was able to go to the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in New Brunswick. This gallery was included in a law suit between Lord Beaverbrook's Estate and a foundation he had established during his life. 

📚 See more about this case using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artresearch #estates #artist #foundation #gallery
Two sculptures have finally returned to Santiago d Two sculptures have finally returned to Santiago de Compostela after seventy-two years.

Our recent article examines the Spanish Supreme Court's decision to return the Abraham and Isaac sculptures to Santiago de Compostela, and the pivotal role that object identification played in resolving the dispute.

📚 Click the link in our bio to read the complete article by Lucas Güimil Valdés!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #culturalheritage #restitution #provenanceresearch #spain #culturalproperty
Our recent article revisits Professor Matthias Wel Our recent article revisits Professor Matthias Weller's presentation introducing Germany's new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property. It explores how the new tribunal differs from the former Limbach Commission and what its procedures, jurisdiction, and binding decisions could mean for future restitution claims.

📚 Read the full article by Savannah Weiler and Amanda Buonaiuto at the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #culturalproperty #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #alternativedisputeresolution
It’s August 🔥 Think Art Law. World Cap 2026 is ove It’s August 🔥 Think Art Law. World Cap 2026 is over. For us it will be remembered for Haaland Memes and $25 MILLION lawsuit filed by environmental artist Robert Wyland against FIFA for painting over the iconic 1999 downtown Dallas mural, Whaling Wall 82.* Summer Internships at the Center are winding down. Oh the places we have been together (from UN to MoMA across the US, Canada and the UK). The 2025-2026 Judith Bresler Fellowship is complete and how! and our new fellow is eager to hit the ground running.

As we move into the final stretch of summer, the reality sets in: little and big fires are everywhere and juggling so many balls or making sense of the everyday is getting increasingly impossible. But before we collapse into off-season, we want to thank you for being part of our community. Whether you were here in person, joining us online, or thinking about art and the law from afar, we can’t wait to see what you’ll create, challenge, and defend come fall. Our complements and heartfelt thanks to our Summer Team for everything they’ve accomplished over these months and invested in our future: for staying on track, for research and rigorous work on articles and databases, for genuine team building, and for pushing all of us to grow. And here’s what we’ve learned: when the real world gets too much, look at art. Play ball. Have a hydration break. These are necessities that keep us sane and running overtime. 

📚 Read the full newsletter and become a subscriber using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #legal artlawyer
What inspires a career in art and cultural propert What inspires a career in art and cultural property law?

In our latest interview, Professor Matthias Weller shares how his academic and professional journey led him to become one of the leading voices in the restitution field. He also discusses Germany's new Court of Arbitration for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property and what this landmark development could mean for the future of restitution.

📚 Read the full interview using the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalreserach #legal #art #lawyer #restitution #artcrime #arbitration #germany
ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 - the countdown begins! S ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 - the countdown begins!
See you in Zurich in September ✨

The response to our inaugural edition has exceeded all expectations, with applications received from around the world. Thank you to everyone who applied! We look forward to welcoming our first cohort of participants very soon.

Sessions will take place across some of Switzerland’s leading institutions, including ZHdK, the University of Zurich, Kunsthaus Zurich, Swiss Re, Homburger, and more. This year’s faculty will be announced in the upcoming posts. 

From copyright and AI to provenance, restitution, dispute resolution, and the future of collecting, the ART × LAW INTENSIVE 2026 brings together the people shaping the future of the art world. Excited! 

 
Photos: 1. “Zardoz” by Monster Chetwynd, the garden of Kunsthaus Zurich. 2. Tram stop of Museum Rietberg. 3. Picnic spot in Belvoirpark. 4. The roofs of Rämistrasse. 5. The drone view over Bellevueplatz.
Major changes to restitution law are underway on b Major changes to restitution law are underway on both sides of the Atlantic.

Recent developments in the United States and the United Kingdom could reshape how Nazi-looted art claims are resolved. Our latest article breaks down the proposed amendments to the U.S. HEAR Act, changes to the U.K.'s Charities Act, and why alternative dispute resolution is becoming an increasingly important part of the conversation.

📚 Read the full article by Marina Rastorfer at the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #museumlaw
The Center for Art Law takes on the MoMA! Our te The Center for Art Law takes on the MoMA! 

Our team recently spent the day exploring one of New York City's iconic museums. Our highlights included the Marcel Duchamp retrospective (on view through August 22) and American Folk Art: Revisiting the Collection of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (through August 9).

Experiencing art in person is an invaluable complement to our work in art law. Whether exploring questions of ownership, AI, preservation, museum policy, and much more, we believe engaging directly with art is an essential part of the conversation.

Be sure to visit MoMA's current exhibitions and outstanding permanent collection. Or spend some time at your local museum, gallery, or community arts event this summer! ☀️

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #MoMA
Facing financial challenges, the Metropolitan Oper Facing financial challenges, the Metropolitan Opera has proposed a potential sale of its Marc Chagall’s murals.

In her article, Halle O’Hern explores how cultural institutions are turning to creative financial strategies, including art-backed loans and shared ownership models. 

📚 Read the full article at the link in our bio! 

#ArtLaw #CulturalHeritage #ArtFinance #MuseumLaw #MarcChagall #MetOpera
In a world shaped by smartphones, metaglasses, and In a world shaped by smartphones, metaglasses, and AI, what should be considered acceptable when images can be captured and shared so widely?

In 2015, Martha and Matthew Foster sued photographer Arne Svenson, who had spent the previous year taking photographs of them inside their home through their windows, without their knowledge. The court ultimately ruled in the photographer’s favor, citing his right to artistic expression.

In this episode of Art in Brief, Andrea and Paris are joined by Cathy Kaplan—lawyer, professor, and chair of the boards of Yale art gallery and Aperture, as well as the Whitney photography committee—to discuss the questions this case raises about privacy, consent, artistic freedom, and commercial use. 

🎙️ Listen to the full episode using the link in our bio!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #privacylaw #artlawyer #lawyer #podcast #newepisode
https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/the-dorville-case-a- https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/the-dorville-case-a-judicial-turn-facilitating-the-restitution-of-artworks-acquired-during-the-french-occupation/ 

A landmark decision from France's highest court could reshape the future of Holocaust-era art restitution.

Our latest article examines the Dorville case, in which the Cour de Cassation adopted a broader interpretation of France's postwar restitution laws. The decision may have far-reaching implications for museums, collectors, and future restitution claims.

📚 Read the full article by Alexandra Kharchenko at the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlawyer #artlaw #nazilootedart #restitution #provenanceresearch #culturalheritage #museumlaw #Frenchlaw
  • 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.