Arguably he has a Constitutional question.
Oregon is not a Territory but a State so US Constitution Section 8 Paragraph 17 defines what land the federal government is allowed to own inside a State.
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
There were no Forts Magazines etc. there.
Oregon and other western states may want to get in on this as it is a USSC issue.
Oregon did take take this to SCOTUS in 1935 and lost. (See the link in post #8 above).
Article 1, section 8, cl. 17 doesn't limit what property the federal government can own within a state; it limits the places where the federal government has exclusive, rather than concurrent, jurisdiction. The Malheur Refuge was established pursuant to Article IV, section 3, clause 2, which gives Congress the power to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United states."
No it doesn't. That lists property acquired from a state through consent of the legislature. That has nothing to do with property that belonged to the federal government before Oregon became a state and which was not turned over to them when admitted.
Oregon and other western states may want to get in on this as it is a USSC issue.
A question which the Supreme Court has answered many times in the past.