Sturgeon v. Frost

Last updated

Sturgeon v. Frost I
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 20, 2016
Decided March 22, 2016
Full case nameSturgeon v. Frost, Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service, et al.
Docket no. 14-1209
Citations577 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1061; 194 L. Ed. 2d 108
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorSummary judgment granted, Sturgeon v. Masica, No. 3:11-cv-0183, 2013 WL 5888230 (D. Alaska Oct. 30, 2013); affirmed, 768 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 27 (2015).
SubsequentOn remand, 872 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2648 (2018).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.   § 3103(c)
Sturgeon v. Frost II
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 5, 2018
Decided March 26, 2019
Full case nameSturgeon v. Frost, Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service, et al.
Docket no. 17-949
Citations587 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1066; 203 L. Ed. 2d 453
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior872 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2648 (2018).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
MajorityKagan, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.   § 3103(c)

Sturgeon v. Frost refers to two cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, both of which deal with the regulatory authority of the National Park Service over lands in Alaska under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). [1] In the first case, Sturgeon v. Frost I, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), the Court ruled that the National Park Service may regulate only "public" lands in Alaska and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court to decide whether the river in question, which is "submerged land," is "public" or "non-public" land. [2] In Sturgeon v. Frost II, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), the Court unanimously ruled that the ANILCA defines navigable waters in Alaska as "non-public" lands and that they are exempt from the National Park Service's national regulations. [3]

Contents

Background

In establishing Alaska as a state, the US government recognized the need to protect much of the land in the state but without superseding the state's own control of these lands. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, passed in 1980, was designed to balance the federal and the state interests in conservation. Effectively, the law designed a number of Conservation System Units (CSUs), which were designed as public land, and gave the National Park Service (NPS) the authority to manage the resources within the United States public lands within a CSU and could not regulate non-public lands (including those owned by the state, tribes, and private parties). Such resources were read to include water resources within a public CSU. That was added to a law signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1976 that gave the Department of the Interior and, through the NPS, the authority to regulate conduct of navigable waters within federally-designated national parks.

The case arose in 2007 when the Alaskan hunter John Sturgeon was informed by the National Park Service that he could not pilot his hovercraft along the portion of the Nation River that fell within the Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve, one of the CSUs covered by ANILCA. [4] Alaska state law allows for the use of hovercraft in navigable waters, but the NPS had banned their use nationwide in public lands.

Sturgeon filed a lawsuit in which he argued that section 103(c) of the ANILCA restricted the National Park Service's jurisdiction over portions of the river that were owned by Alaska. [5] Sturgeon was backed by the state since the ruling affected how the state could enforce ANILCA. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska ruled in favor of the Park Service, [6] and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. [7] The Ninth Circuit held that National Park Service regulations "applies to all federal-owned lands and waters administered by [the Park Service] nationwide, as well as all navigable waters lying within national parks," which allowed the NPS to regulate activities along the whole of the navigable portion of the Nation River even if it fell outside the CSU. [8]

Sturgeon v. Frost I

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling. [9] Roberts characterized the Ninth Circuit's ruling as "a topsy-turvy approach" because the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act had been "ultimately inconsistent with both the text and context of the statute as a whole." [10] Rejecting the Ninth Circuit's conclusions, Roberts held that the Act directs the Park Service to regulate "non-public" lands in Alaska according to "Alaska-specific provisions." [11] Additionally, he wrote that "Section 103(c) draws a distinction between 'public' and 'non-public' lands within the boundaries of conservation system units in Alaska." [12]

However, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the Nation River constituted a "public land" for the purposes of the Act or whether the authority of the Park Service's regulations extend to "non-public" lands. [13] To conduct further fact-finding with respect to those issues, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. [14]

In his analysis of the case for SCOTUSblog , Todd Henderson suggested that the Supreme Court avoided several key questions because "the stakes in this case are potentially huge" and that it wanted to "leave for another day the tough questions about federal power over lands in Alaska and perhaps elsewhere throughout the West." [15]

Sturgeon v. Frost II

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further review. In the second hearing, the Circuit Court determined since the Nation River runs through a federal reservation, the federal government had inherent water rights on the river, which allowed the National Park Service's hovercraft ban to apply. [16] A second petition for writ was filed with the Supreme Court that arguing that interpretation would mean that the federal government to have water rights on nearly any surface water running through federally-protected lands. [17]

The case was heard on November 5, 2018, and the Court issued its unanimous decision on March 26, 2019 [3] that reversed the Circuit Court's ruling by arguing that waterways were non-public lands and that the ANILCA had stripped away any jurisdiction that the National Park Service had over them. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act</span> United States federal law providing protection to certain areas in Alaska

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is a United States federal law signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 2, 1980. ANILCA provided varying degrees of special protection to over 157,000,000 acres (64,000,000 ha) of land, including national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, recreational areas, national forests, and conservation areas. It was, and remains to date, the single largest expansion of protected lands in history and more than doubled the size of the National Park System.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antiquities Act</span> 1906 U.S. law allowing the president to create national monuments from federal lands

The Antiquities Act of 1906 is an act that was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt on June 8, 1906. This law gives the president of the United States the authority to, by presidential proclamation, create national monuments from federal lands to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features. The Act has been used more than a hundred times since its enactment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument</span> Former National Monument of the United States

The World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument was a U.S. national monument honoring events, people, and sites of the Pacific Theater engagement of the United States during World War II. The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, signed into law March 12, 2019, abolished the national monument, replacing it with Pearl Harbor National Memorial, Aleutian Islands World War II National Monument, and Tule Lake National Monument.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as "waters of the United States." That provision was the basis for the federal wetlands-permitting program.

Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the legality of the Mojave Memorial Cross, a Latin cross which was placed atop a prominent rock outcropping by the Veterans of Foreign Wars foundation in 1934 to honor war dead. The location is known as "Sunrise Rock" in the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County in southeastern California. The Supreme Court ruled that the cross may stay, but also sent the case back to a lower court, making the issue currently unresolved.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred a California resident from bringing suit against an Austrian railroad in federal district court. The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. She then filed a lawsuit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged the railroad was responsible for causing her injuries. Because the railroad was owned by the Austrian government, the railroad claimed that the lawsuit should be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides immunity to foreign sovereigns in tort suits filed in the United States. In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States.

FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n, 577 U.S. 260 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had the authority to regulate demand response transactions. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case was the last opinion he wrote before his death in February 2016.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the consequences of violating the False Claims Act's requirement that cases be kept under seal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that a violation of the False Claim Act's seal requirement does not require the dismissal of a complaint.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the permitting of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline under the Appalachian Trail in the George Washington National Forest. At issue were conflicting agencies and laws for those agencies. The permit was issued by United States Forest Service (USFS) which has responsibility of the national forest, while the Trail itself is part of the National Park Service (NPS), and which under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 does not allow any other government agency to issue right of way permits through its lands. In the 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that due to how the NPS was assigned the Trail by the Department of the Interior, it did not transform the lands within the trail to lands of the NPS and were still within the USFS's purview, and thus ruled that the USFS could issue the permit. The case had been consolidated with Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association .

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court. However, rather than resolving the questions presented, the Supreme Court dismissed review of the case as improvidently granted.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed. The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.

References

  1. ↑ Codified at 16 U.S.C.   § 3103(c) .
  2. ↑ Sturgeon v. Frost,No. 14-1209 , 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 12–15 (2016).
  3. 1 2 Sturgeon v. Frost,No. 17-949 , 587 U.S. ___(2019).
  4. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 1–6.
  5. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 1–2, 6–7.
  6. ↑ Sturgeon v. Masica, No.3:11-cv-00183 ( D. Alaska Oct. 30, 2013).
  7. ↑ Sturgeon v. Masica, 768F.3d1066 ( 9th Cir. 2014).
  8. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 11–12.
  9. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 12–16.
  10. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 12–14.
  11. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 14.
  12. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 14–15.
  13. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 15–16.
  14. ↑ Sturgeon, slip op. at 16.
  15. ↑ Todd Henderson, Opinion analysis: A rebuke of the Ninth Circuit, and nothing more, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 23, 2016).
  16. ↑ Sturgeon v. Frost, 872F.3d927 (9th Cir.2017).
  17. ↑ Zellmer, Sandi (October 29, 2018). "Argument preview: Can a hovercraft navigate the shoals of Yukon-Charley?". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved October 29, 2018.
  18. ↑ de Vogue, Ariane (March 26, 2019). "Alaska moose hunter can 'rev up his hovercraft,' Supreme Court rules". CNN . Retrieved March 26, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.