Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
- Rep. Celeste Maloy introduced a bill to repeal a rule allowing the U.S. Forest Service to enforce state laws.
- Maloy argues the rule creates jurisdictional confusion and potential government overreach on National Forest lands.
- Sen. Cynthia Lummis supports the repeal, citing concerns about differing state laws and enforcement complexities.
WASHINGTON — A pair of lawmakers are pushing to undo a rule that allows the U.S. Forest Service to enforce state laws, arguing that ability will cause mass confusion and pave the way for government overreach.
Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, introduced a bill that would repeal the Criminal Prohibitions Rules, which grants law enforcement officials in the Forest Service the authority to enforce state laws on National Forest lands. The rule went into effect at the end of December, prompting pushback from lawmakers in states with public lands who argue it would lead to confusion and possible friction between law enforcement agencies.
"It's going to cause friction in states where we're already trying to minimize friction between federal land management agencies and locals," Maloy told the Deseret News in an interview.
Maloy argued the rule makes it unclear which agencies have jurisdiction over enforcement of state laws, causing confusion about whether certain matters would need to be handled in federal court.
Proponents have pushed back against those characterizations, arguing the rule allows officials to more effectively enforce violations such as possession of controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and open containers of alcoholic beverages, underage drinking and furnishing alcoholic beverages to minors.
However, Maloy noted that many local sheriffs already have the ability to deputize Forest Service rangers to handle matters as needed, arguing "they feel like (rangers) have adequate training."
"I'd rather leave it up to the sheriffs to decide when they want to have them and when they don't," Maloy said.
Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis, of Wyoming, introduced companion legislation in the Senate, citing similar concerns about jurisdictional ambiguity — particularly in cases where national park land encompasses two or more states.
"Wyoming laws are different from Utah laws, different from Idaho's laws, different from Colorado's laws," Lummis told the Deseret News. "To expect a Forest Service employee to understand all the nuances of Idaho law versus Utah law versus Wyoming law as (it pertains) to traffic laws, driving while under the influence laws, the legality or lack thereof over marijuana," and more.
Lummis claimed the rule was an effort "by the Forest Service to usurp local law enforcement," decrying it as "unworkable" and "unwise."
"These are all things that confuse law enforcement as imposed by a federal employee," Lummis said. "What federal employee would want to be placed in that jurisdictional confusion?"
The National Forest Service declined to comment, telling the Deseret News the agency does not comment on pending legislation.
