San Francisco Herring Assoc. v. Usdoi, 33 F.4th 1146

Background

Congress created the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in 1972 and expressly included specified quarter-mile offshore zones of San Francisco Bay within the Recreation Area boundaries.
The National Park Service (NPS) has a general regulation banning commercial fishing in park units (36 C.F.R. § 2.3(d)(4)); the Association challenges NPS enforcement in the GGNRA waters.
Section 460bb-3(a) of the GGNRA Act directs the Secretary to “administer the lands, waters, and interests therein acquired for the recreation area,” and § 460bb-2 details acquisition rules for lands (including restrictions on acquiring California-owned property).
The San Francisco Herring Association sued in 2013 arguing NPS lacks authority to regulate the navigable waters unless it first acquires a formal property interest from California; district court granted summary judgment to the government.
The Ninth Circuit previously addressed final agency action (Herring I and Herring II); on remand the district court again granted summary judgment for the government, and this appeal presents the statutory-authority question de novo.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NPS may administer and enforce park regulations in navigable waters within the GGNRA without first acquiring a formal property interest from California	§ 460bb-3(a) conditions NPS authority on having “acquired” the waters, so NPS lacks power absent conveyance from California	Congress placed these navigable waters within park boundaries and directed their protection; waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction need not be separately conveyed and are administrable under the Organic Act and GGNRA	Held for Government: Congress’s placement of navigable waters in the GGNRA and related provisions authorize NPS to administer those waters without a separate property conveyance
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Sturgeon v. Frost requires reading § 460bb-3(a) to limit NPS authority absent federal title	Sturgeon shows that specific statutory language (ANILCA) can forbid Park Service regulation absent federal title; analogous reading should apply here	Sturgeon turns on ANILCA’s unique “public lands” definition and explicit “deeming” language; GGNRA lacks analogous language and instead affirmatively includes the waters	Held for Government: Sturgeon is distinguishable and supports the conclusion that Congress did not create an Alaska‑style exception for the GGNRA
Whether requiring acquisition from California would be feasible or coherent given California public-trust law and GGNRA acquisition rules	If acquisition were required, state public-trust constraints and GGNRA limits on purchases from California would make NPS protection impracticable	That impracticability confirms Congress did not intend a conveyance prerequisite when it included the waters and authorized their protection	Held for Government: statutory text and structure show Congress did not intend an acquisition prerequisite

Key Cases Cited

Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019) (held ANILCA’s text prevents NPS regulation of non‑public waters in Alaska absent federal title; fact‑specific and distinguishable)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967) (discusses congressional power over navigable waters)
Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193 (1987) (federal control over water use can persist even if state holds submerged‑land title)
Fed. Power Comm’n v. Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (1954) (observes that running waters cannot be owned in the traditional sense)
Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (1988) (courts presume Congress aware of relevant legal background when drafting statutes)
San Francisco Herring Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 946 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2019) (prior Ninth Circuit decision addressing final agency action on remand)