D.Utah: Ex parte SW process should not be used for access to tribal lands without adversary proceedings

An ex parte search warrant isn’t appropriate to resolve an unresolved question of law about whether an Indian Tribe can condition access to tribal lands without an “assess permit.” An adversary proceeding is required. In re Search Warrant Application in EPA Admin. Insp. on Ute Tribal Land, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55160 (D. Utah Mar. 13, 2026):

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT FOR ENTRY AND INSPECTION

Before the court is the United States’ (the Government) Ex Parte Warrant (Warrant, ECF 3 as amended) and Application in Support (Application or App., ECF 1). The Government seeks an administrative warrant authorizing agents of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to inspect certain sites located on the Uintah & Ouray Reservation (the Reservation). The Government asserts that the Warrant is necessary because the Ute Tribe (the Tribe) requires that EPA officials apply for an “access permit” before entering the Reservation. The Government believes it does not have to comply with the Tribe’s access permit condition. Accordingly, the Government seeks this ex parte Warrant authorizing EPA agents to enter the Reservation without applying for an access permit.

After considering the Warrant, the Application, and the Government’s position as addressed at the February 18, 2026, Zoom conference, the court concludes it is unable to issue the Warrant. If the Warrant merely sought the issuance of an administrative warrant for inspection of the sites to ensure compliance with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the criteria for issuance would be met. See e.g, In re Sealed Search Warrant Application, 784 F. Supp. 3d 970, 971 (S.D. Tex. 2025) (explaining administrative warrants allow federal regulatory agencies to gain entry to a business for inspection to identify safety hazards and/or other violations). The Warrant here, however, goes beyond that request. Issuing the Warrant under these circumstances would require the court to resolve an unanswered legal question. Specifically, the court would have to determine whether the Tribe may lawfully impose an access permit as a condition for entry onto the Reservation to perform an inspection under the CAA. Hence, this Warrant presents the court with an unresolved question of law regarding the scope of the Tribe and the Government’s authority and the conditions, if any, that the Tribe may impose on federal agencies.

The Government provides no legal authority supporting the claim that an ex parte warrant is appropriate for resolving unanswered questions of law, especially not one like the one presented before the court. Resolving the issue requires an adversarial process that involves complete briefing and full consideration of the competing legal arguments, processes that are outside the scope and limited function of an ex parte administrative warrant application. Accordingly, the court declines to issue the warrant because doing so would require it to impermissibly decide an unanswered question of law through the issuance of an ex parte warrant.

This entry was posted in Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.