349 F. Supp. 3d 48
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (commercial lobstermen) challenged the President’s proclamation creating the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, asserting the Antiquities Act does not authorize monuments in the ocean and that the proclamation exceeds presidential authority.
- Two legal question buckets: (1) statutory interpretation questions (e.g., whether submerged lands/count as "lands" and whether the U.S. "controls" the EEZ) that courts can resolve on the record; (2) factual disputes (e.g., whether the monument is the "smallest area compatible") that may require detailed factual development to review.
- The Government moved to dismiss; the Court evaluates jurisdictional and merits obstacles and treats its decision as a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) though analysis would be same under 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiffs argued (a) "lands" in the Antiquities Act excludes ocean/submerged lands; (b) the federal government lacks sufficient "control" over the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); and (c) the monument is not confined to the "smallest area compatible" with protection.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent, executive practice, statutory context, and international/domestic law regarding the EEZ to reject Plaintiffs’ first two arguments and concluded Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient factual detail to sustain the "smallest area" claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "lands" in the Antiquities Act excludes submerged ocean areas | "Land" excludes the ocean; monument entirely beneath waves therefore invalid | Supreme Court precedent, executive practice, and ordinary meaning support that "lands" includes submerged lands | Court held "lands" includes submerged lands; Antiquities Act authorizes marine monuments |
| Whether federal government "controls" the EEZ for Antiquities Act purposes | "Control" requires complete/absolute dominion, which the U.S. lacks in the EEZ | "Control" need not be absolute; U.S. exercises substantial, specific, and unrivaled authority in the EEZ (resource management, conservation, fisheries law) | Court held U.S. exerts sufficient control over the EEZ to satisfy the Act |
| Whether the Monument conflicts with later statutes (National Marine Sanctuaries Act) or is impliedly repealed | Sanctuaries Act shows Congress intended marine areas outside Antiquities Act reach; later statute impliedly repeals or limits the Act | Sanctuaries Act complements, not repeals or narrows, Antiquities Act; Acts serve overlapping but distinct purposes | Court rejected implied-repeal/post-enactment-intent arguments; Acts coexist |
| Whether monument boundaries violate the "smallest area compatible" requirement | Boundaries sweep too broadly beyond canyons/seamounts and exceed smallest necessary area | Proclamation protects ecosystems and natural resources around canyons/seamounts; plaintiffs pleaded only conclusory facts | Court concluded plaintiffs failed to plead specific nonconclusory facts; declined to conduct further review and dismissed the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (recognizing Antiquities Act reservations can include waters and submerged features)
- United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32 (affirming Presidential power under Antiquities Act to reserve submerged lands and waters)
- Alaska v. United States, 545 U.S. 75 (stating clearly that the Antiquities Act empowers the President to reserve submerged lands)
- Tulare County v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing reviewability of smallest-area and related factual claims under the Antiquities Act)
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (addressing limits on review of certain executive actions)
- Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 U.S. 646 (explaining that "lands" can include areas covered by water)