And with that, I'll hand things over to Ethan.

Thanks, Judge Holt, and thank you to the Federalist Society for, I think, a very important topic for the West that often gets a little bit neglected.

This is always risky, but I'm going to depart a little bit from my plan of remarks because I wanted to note, since we're talking about A250 and the framers, that they actually were aware of this problem in a slightly different context because one of the grievances against A250 The crown was that the crown had raised conditions for new appropriations of lands.

So as we expanded westward, the crown put some very serious limitations on homesteading and development of those lands, and that was one of the major grievances of the Continental Congress because they lacked control over the development of westward expansion.

Now we have a similar situation, but it's now the federal government that is controlling that.

And the grievance, of course, is the states against the federal control of these lands.

Just to give you some idea of the stakes here for some of the Westerners, I want to describe to you the situation of a small town in Arizona called Tusian, which is right on the southern rim of of the Grand Canyon, about 600 people live there and they serve about 5 million visitors a year.

Any thoughts on that decision as it relates to the Utah case issue or just that decision generally?