Patagonia is suing the US government for plan to sell off Utah park land — is resisting the Trump presidency a winning marketing strategy?

The lawsuit seeks to reactivate litigation Patagonia and other groups brought in 2017 after Trump reduced the monument during his first term. That case was still pending when President Biden restored Bears Ears’ boundaries in 2021.

The rundown on litigation

At the center of the latest dispute is Trump’s July proclamation reducing Bears Ears, a federally protected land with culturally significant Indigenous sites, by 91%. Trump seeks to remove roughly 1.24 million acres from the monument, leaving about 121,000 acres protected under the designation.

Trump also reduced Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument from roughly 1.87 million acres to about 181,500 acres. The administration said the excluded land was no longer needed to protect the monument. The move opened those areas to other uses, including mining and energy development.

Commercial interest has already begun. At least nine mining claims have been staked in areas removed from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, according to federal records the New York Times reviewed.

However, Patagonia argues Trump doesn’t have the authority to make those reductions. The company’s lawsuit contends that the Antiquities Act of 1906 gives presidents the power to establish national monuments, but not to dismantle them by substantially reducing their boundaries.

For Patagonia, the legal challenge carries significant risk. As the NYT reported, environmental lawyers worry the dispute could eventually reach the Supreme Court, where a ruling against Patagonia and its allies could have consequences far beyond Bears Ears.

Patagonia deputy general counsel Rob Tadlock acknowledged that possibility but said, “The risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of taking on this challenge.”

Patagonia’s first Trump fight paid off

That willingness to take a stand has also become closely tied to Patagonia’s identity as a business. If anything, its experience during Trump’s first term showed how taking a political stand can reinforce a brand rather than weaken it.