The Bundy stand-off in Nevada has induced several people to ask me about the extent to which the federal government can own land, at least under the Constitutions intended meaning. As it happens, in 2005 I studied the issue in depth, and published the following article: Federal Land Retention and the Constitutions Property Clause: The Original Understanding, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 327 (2005).
In a nutshell, heres what I found:
(1) Most commentators on the issue have staked out one of two polar positions. One position, which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers. The other polar position is that the federal government may own land only for the purposes enumerated in the Enclave Clause (the national capital and Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings) and that the equal footing doctrine requires that all other federal land within a prospective state be handed over the state government upon statehood.
(2) In fact, both polar positions are falseand very clearly so.
3) The Constitution grants the federal government authority to acquire real estate and other property to carry out any enumerated purpose, either in the exercise of a core power (such as maintain a Navy) or through the implied powers memorialized in the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, Congress may acquire land to build post Roads (limited access highways), house tax collectors, and build lighthouses under the Commerce Power.
(4) Further, the Constitutions Treaty Power authorizes the federal government to acquire territory.
(5) However, land acquiredthrough, for example, the Treaty Powermay be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.
(6) In fact, for the federal government to own a large share of American real estate (currently about 28 percent) is directly contrary to certain values the Constitution was designed to further.
Non-enclave land owned by the federal government is held under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), and should be held only for enumerated purposes. Grazing, for example, is not an enumerated purpose.
(12) Non-enclave federal property within states is subject to state law. Contrary to current Supreme Court doctrine, when the federal government owns non-enclave land, the federal government usually should be treated like any other landowner, so long as the state respects the discharge of legitimate federal functions.
But Bundy is issue beyond this as he knowingly didn't honor his contract to graze his cattle on public lands, depriving taxpayers of that revenue, preventing the government from leasing it to someone else, and he pockets the extra profit in the process--welfare by theft.