This always seemed like a matter of wealth + intent meeting a law firm willing to make the argument rather than a viable legal theory.

I can't imagine that if this was a significant cost for the party filing the suit that they would have prosecuted it.

Given the wording of the law (even absent the recent subsequent laws) you can't claim privilege over public land like that.

If the ruling were any different it would have been terrible for the idea of public lands being for public use.