Sturgeon v. Frost
587 U.S. 28
SCOTUS2019Background
- ANILCA created Alaska conservation system units (national parks/preserves) with boundaries drawn to natural features, bringing ~18 million acres of state, Native, and private "inholdings" inside unit boundaries while only "public lands" (federally owned lands, waters, interests) are "deemed" part of units. 16 U.S.C. §3103(c).
- John Sturgeon used a hovercraft on the Nation River within the Yukon‑Charley Rivers National Preserve; Park Service rangers enforced a nationwide hovercraft ban applicable to waters "located within [a park's] boundaries." 36 C.F.R. §2.17(e).
- Sturgeon sued seeking an injunction under ANILCA §103(c), arguing non‑federal waters within Alaska units are exempt from Park Service regulations; lower courts rejected him, the Supreme Court granted review and remanded once, then took the case again.
- Key statutory definitions: ANILCA defines "land" to mean "lands, waters, and interests therein," and "public lands" as lands the title to which is in the United States (with some exclusions). §3102(1)–(3).
- Two central legal questions: (1) Whether the Nation River is "public land" under ANILCA; (2) If not, whether the Park Service can nonetheless regulate Sturgeon’s hovercraft use on that stretch of the river.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sturgeon) | Defendant's Argument (Frost/NPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nation River is "public land" under ANILCA | Nation River is not federally titled; thus not "public land," so Park Service lacks authority to apply hovercraft ban | NPS: United States has an "interest" (reserved water right) or other federal title/interest making navigable waters "public land" | Held: Nation River is not "public land." Reserved water rights (if any) constitute a limited federal interest that does not make the whole river "public land." |
| Whether ANILCA §103(c) allows Park Service to regulate non‑public lands/waters inside unit boundaries | §103(c) means non‑public lands/waters within unit boundaries are "deemed" outside units and exempt from Park Service regulations applicable to public lands; thus NPS cannot regulate those inholdings | §103(c) only bars regulations that are "solely" applicable to public lands; regulations that on their face apply regardless of ownership (like the hovercraft rule) still reach inholdings | Held: §103(c) exempts non‑public lands and waters (including navigable waters) from the Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority; the NPS reading would nullify §103(c)'s purpose and is rejected. |
| Whether navigable waters are treated differently than other non‑public lands under ANILCA | Navigable waters should be treated like other non‑public lands under §103(c) and thus exempt from NPS regulations | NPS: ANILCA’s purposes and other provisions require NPS authority to regulate navigable waters to protect park resources | Held: ANILCA defines "land" to include "waters," so navigable waters are exempt along with other non‑public lands; but NPS retains alternative tools (cooperative agreements, targeted regulations necessary to protect public park lands, acquisition). |
| Whether NPS retains any authority to protect park resources tied to non‑public waters | Sturgeon: §103(c) forecloses NPS regulation of non‑public waters as parklands; alternative tools exist but are narrower | NPS: needs full ownership‑indifferent authority to protect rivers (e.g., hovercraft ban) | Held: NPS cannot apply its ordinary, ownership‑indifferent parkwide regulations to non‑public waters; however, NPS may rely on other measures (cooperative agreements with State, targeted rules necessary to protect adjacent public lands, acquisition, Wild & Scenic designations) to protect park resources. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (reserved‑water‑rights doctrine: federal reservations imply water rights necessary to accomplish reservation’s purpose)
- Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (federal reservation of land may imply appurtenant water rights for reservation beneficiaries)
- FPC v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (1954) (usufructuary nature of certain water interests; running waters cannot be owned in the ordinary sense)
- United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1997) (Submerged Lands Act and State title to lands under navigable waters)
- Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976) (scope of federal regulatory authority over public lands)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012) (navigability determined on a segment‑by‑segment basis)