945 F.3d 535
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- The Antiquities Act authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on "land owned or controlled by the Federal Government" and to reserve only the "smallest area compatible" with protecting objects of historic or scientific interest.
- President Obama created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, reserving roughly 5,000 square miles in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to protect underwater canyons, seamounts, and associated ecosystems and resources.
- The Monument lies entirely within the EEZ (12–200 nautical miles offshore), where the U.S. claims sovereign rights for exploring, conserving, and managing natural resources under the Reagan Proclamation and statutes like the Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson‑Stevens, and OCSLA.
- Commercial fishing associations sued, arguing the President exceeded authority because: (1) the ocean/submerged lands are not "land" under the Act; (2) use of the Antiquities Act for oceans conflicts with the Sanctuaries Act; (3) the EEZ is not "controlled" by the federal government; and (4) the reserved area is not the "smallest area compatible." The district court dismissed; the D.C. Circuit affirmed with a clarification about the proper dismissal standard.
- The court clarified that legal defeats to Antiquities Act challenges should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), not Rule 12(b)(1), because federal courts have subject‑matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether submerged ocean areas in the EEZ are "land" under the Antiquities Act | Ocean/submerged areas are not "land" as ordinarily understood | Supreme Court precedent and practice show the Act reaches submerged lands and waters | Held: Act covers submerged lands and waters; precedent controls |
| Whether using the Antiquities Act for marine monuments nullifies the Sanctuaries Act | Antiquities Act designations would render the Sanctuaries Act redundant and evade its procedures | The statutes differ in scope, purpose, size limits, and procedures and can co‑exist | Held: No conflict; both statutes are compatible |
| Whether the EEZ is "owned or controlled by the Federal Government" | "Controlled" should be akin to ownership; EEZ lacks ownership/control like federal land | "Owned" and "controlled" are distinct; U.S. exercises exclusive, unrivaled authority over the EEZ under international and domestic law | Held: EEZ is "controlled" by the federal government for purposes of the Act |
| Whether the Monument is the "smallest area compatible" with proper care and management | Monument reserves large areas beyond the canyons/seamounts and is thus overbroad | Proclamation protects canyons/seamounts and surrounding ecosystems; plaintiffs must plead specific facts showing parts lack protected resources | Held: Plaintiffs failed to plead plausible facts that any part lacked protected resources; smallest‑area claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (upheld Antiquities Act authority to protect an underground pool/submerged feature)
- United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32 (1978) (confirmed the Act reaches submerged lands and waters)
- Alaska v. United States, 545 U.S. 75 (2005) (reiterated that the President may reserve submerged lands under the Act)
- Mountain States Legal Found. v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (framework distinguishing facial statutory issues from fact‑intensive challenges)
- Tulare County v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (pleading standard for smallest‑area challenges; ecosystems qualify as protectable objects)
- Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019) (recognized federal exclusive authority over the EEZ)