Sturgeon v. Frost
Issues
Does the National Park Service have the authority to enforce federal regulations banning the use of hovercrafts on navigable waters within, but not a part of, the national park system in Alaska?
This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether the National Park Service (“NPS”) has the authority to regulate activity on navigable waters on non-federal land located within, but not deemed part of, the national park system in Alaska. John Sturgeon contends that Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”), which defines “public lands” as those to which the United States has title, excludes non-federal lands and waters falling within the boundaries of Alaska’s national parks from NPS regulations. Sturgeon further argues that the NPS does not derive any regulatory authority from any reserved water rights the federal government may own. Bert Frost, in his official capacity as Alaska Regional Director of the NPS, contends that Section 103(c) merely restricts the NPS’s preexisting regulatory authority over navigable waters within national parks, as granted by Congress. According to Frost, the NPS may only enforce water-related rules regarding activities hazardous to the use and management of public lands. The outcome of this case will have implications concerning the balance of power between the state and federal government to regulate non-public lands and waters falling within the national park system in Alaska.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over state, native corporation and private land physically located within the boundaries of the national park system in Alaska.
In 2011, John Sturgeon was moose hunting in Alaska when the National Park Service (“NPS”) informed him that he could not use his hovercraft on the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley preservation. Sturgeon v. Masica, No. 3:11-cv-0183-HRH, 2013 WL 5888230, at *5 (D. Alaska Oct. 30, 2013).
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Matthew J. Sanders, Sturgeon v. Frost: A Little Case in Alaska Poses Big Questions for Federalism, American Bar Association (Dec. 27, 2017).
- Sam Friedman, In Second High Court Bid, Sturgeon says Hovercraft Case has National Importance, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Jan. 9, 2018).
- Shady Grove Oliver, Supreme Court will Revisit Landmark Alaska Water Rights Case, The Artic Sounder (June 22, 2018).
- Mary Simton, Turf War: State Urges Supreme Court to Stop Waterways Regulation, KTVA (Aug. 14, 2018)