Sturgeon v. Frost

Decision Date22 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 14–1209.,14–1209.
Citation194 L.Ed.2d 108,136 S.Ct. 1061,577 U.S. 424
Parties John STURGEON, Petitioner v. Bert FROST, in his official capacity as Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service, et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Matthew T. Findley, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner.

Ruth Botstein, Anchorage, AK, for the State of Alaska as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Rachel P. Kovner, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

William S. Consovoy, J. Michael Connolly, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, Arlington, VA, Michael H. Park, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, New York, NY, Matthew T. Findley, Eva R. Gardner, Ashburn & Mason, P.C., Douglas Pope, Pope & Katcher, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Andrew C. Mergen, Dean K. Dunsmore, Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

For almost 40 years, John Sturgeon has hunted moose along the Nation River in Alaska. Because parts of the river are shallow and difficult to navigate, Sturgeon travels by hovercraft, an amphibious vehicle capable of gliding over land and water. To reach his preferred hunting grounds, Sturgeon must pilot his hovercraft over a stretch of the Nation River that flows through the Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve, a 1.7 million acre federal preservation area managed by the National Park Service. 16 U.S.C. § 410hh (10).

Alaska law permits the use of hovercraft. National Park Service regulations do not. See 36 CFR § 2.17(e) (2015). After Park Service rangers informed Sturgeon that he was prohibited from using his hovercraft within the boundaries of the preserve, Sturgeon filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. He argues that the Nation River is owned by the State, and that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) prohibits the Park Service from enforcing its regulations on state-owned land in Alaska. The Park Service disagrees, contending that it has authority to regulate waters flowing through federally managed preservation areas. The District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Park Service. We granted certiorari.

I

In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward, serving under President Andrew Johnson, negotiated a treaty to purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Treaty Concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America, Mar. 30, 1867, 15 Stat. 539. In a single stroke, the United States gained 365 million acres of land—an area more than twice the size of Texas. Despite the bargain price of two cents an acre, however, the purchase was mocked by contemporaries as "Seward's Folly" and President Johnson's "Polar Bear Garden." See C. Naske & H. Slotnick, Alaska: A History 92–94 (2011) (Naske & Slotnick); S.Rep. No. 1163, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1957).

The monikers didn't stick. In 1898, the "Three Lucky Swedes"Jafet Lindeberg, Eric Lindblom, and Jon Brynteson—struck gold in Nome, Alaska. As word of their discovery spread, thousands traveled to Alaska to try their hand at mining. Once the gold rush subsided, settlers turned to other types of mining, fishing, and trapping, fueling an emerging export economy. See Naske & Slotnick 128–129, 155, 249–251; D. Wharton, The Alaska Gold Rush 186–187 (1972).

Despite newfound recognition of Alaska's economic potential, however, it was not until the 1950's that Congress seriously considered admitting Alaska as a State. By that time, it was clear that Alaska was strategically important both in the Pacific and Arctic, and that the Territory was rich in natural resources, including oil. Moreover, the people of Alaska favored statehood. See Naske & Slotnick 201, 224–235. But there was a problem: Out of the 365 million acres of land in Alaska, 98 percent were owned by the Federal Government. As a result, absent a land grant from the Federal Government to the State, there would be little land available to drive private economic activity and contribute to the state tax base. See S.Rep. No. 1163, at 2, 12 ("The expenses of the State of Alaska will be comparatively high, partially due to the vast land areas within the State; but the State would be able to realize revenues from only 2 percent of this vast area unless some provision were made to modify the present land-ownership conditions").

A solution was struck. The 1958 Alaska Statehood Act permitted Alaska to select 103 million acres of "vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved" federal land—just over a quarter of all land in Alaska—for state ownership. §§ 6(a)-(b), 72 Stat. 340. That land grant included "mineral deposits," which were "subject to lease by the State as the State legislature may direct." § 6(i), id., at 342. Upon statehood, Alaska also gained "title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters" within the State, in addition to "the natural resources within such lands and waters," including "the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use the said lands and natural resources." § 3(a), 67 Stat. 30, 43 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ; § 6(m), 72 Stat. 343. With over 100 million acres of land now available to the new State, Alaska could begin to fulfill its state policy "to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest." Alaska Const., Art. VIII, § 1 (2014).

The Statehood Act did not, however, determine the rights of the Alaska Natives, who asserted aboriginal title to much of the same land now claimed by the State. Naske & Slotnick 287–289. To resolve the dispute, Congress in 1971 passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which extinguished aboriginal land claims in Alaska. 85 Stat. 688, as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. In exchange, Congress provided for a $960 million settlement and permitted corporations organized by groups of Alaska Natives to select 40 million acres of federal land to manage within the State. §§ 1605, 1610–1615; Naske & Slotnick 296–297. Congress sought to implement the settlement "rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs" of Alaska Natives. § 1601(b).

In addition to settling the claims of the Alaska Natives, ANCSA directed the Secretary of the Interior to select up to 80 million acres of unreserved federal land in Alaska for addition to the National Park, Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, subject to congressional approval. § 1616(d)(2). When Congress failed to approve the Secretary's selections, however, President Carter unilaterally designated 56 million acres of federal land in Alaska as national monuments. See Presidential Proclamation Nos. 4611–4627, 3 CFR 69–104 (1978 Comp.).

President Carter's actions were unpopular among many Alaskans, who were concerned that the new monuments would be subject to restrictive federal regulations. Protesters demonstrated in Fairbanks, and more than 2,500 Alaskans participated in the "Great Denali–McKinley Trespass." The goal of the trespass was to break over 25 Park Service rules in a two-day period—including by camping, hunting, snowmobiling, setting campfires, shooting guns, and unleashing dogs. During the event, a "rider on horseback, acting the part of Paul Revere, galloped through the crowd yelling, ‘The Feds are coming! The Feds are coming!’ " N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 1979, p. A8; Anchorage Daily News, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 1–2.

Congress once again stepped in to settle the controversy, passing the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 94 Stat. 2371, 16 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq. ANILCA had two stated goals: First, to provide "sufficient protection for the national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on the public lands in Alaska." § 3101(d). And second, to provide "adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people." Ibid.

ANILCA set aside 104 million acres of land in Alaska for preservation purposes, in the process creating ten new national parks, preserves, and monuments—including the Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve—and tripling the number of acres set aside in the United States for federal wilderness preservation. See § 410hh ; Naske & Slotnick 315–316. At the same time, ANILCA specified that the Park Service could not prohibit on those lands certain activities of particular importance to Alaskans. See, e.g., § 3170(a) (Secretary must permit reasonable use of vehicles "for travel to and from villages and homesites"); § 3201 (Secretary must permit "the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses" within National Preserves in Alaska, subject to regulation and certain exceptions). President Carter's earlier land designations were rescinded. See § 3209(a).

Under ANILCA, federal preservation lands in Alaska were placed into "conservation system units," which were defined to include "any unit in Alaska of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, National Trails System, National Wilderness Preservation System, or a National Forest Monument." § 3102(4). Congress drew the boundaries of those units to "follow hydrographic divides or embrace other topographic or natural features," however, rather than to map the Federal Government's landholdings. § 3103(b). As a consequence, in addition to federal land, over 18 million acres of state, Native Corporation, and private land ended up inside the boundaries of conservation system units. See Brief for Petitioner 6.

This brings us back to Sturgeon and his hovercraft.

II
A

One fall day in 2007, Sturgeon was piloting his hovercraft on the Nation River, which rises in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Vestavia Hills, Ltd. v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (In re Hills)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • March 26, 2021
    ...statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’ " Sturgeon v. Frost , 577 U.S. 424, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1070, 194 L.Ed.2d 108 (2016) (quoting Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 93, 101, 132 S.Ct. 1350, 182 L.Ed.2d 341 (2012) ). On......
  • Standage v. Braithwaite
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 22, 2020
    ...1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Moreover, the words in a statute " ‘cannot be construed in a vacuum.’ " Sturgeon v. Frost , 577 U.S. 424, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1070, 194 L.Ed.2d 108 (2016) (citation omitted); see Gundy v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2126-29, 204 L.Ed.2d 522 (20......
  • Friends of Alaska Nat'l Wildlife Refuges v. Haaland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 16, 2022
    ...See Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (1980) ; see also Sturgeon v. Frost , 577 U.S. 424, 431, 136 S.Ct. 1061, 194 L.Ed.2d 108 (2016). Moments before signing ANILCA into law, the President remarked, "With this bill we are acknowledging that A......
  • United States v. Ruvalcaba
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 15, 2022
    ...statements" in the statutory "context and with a view to [its] place in the overall statutory scheme," Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. 424, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1070, 194 L.Ed.2d 108 (2016) (quotations omitted), such context and scheme make luminously clear that the current policy statement cannot ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Statutory Structure.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 5, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...See discussion infra Section III.C.1. (250.) See Burwell, 576 U.S. at 516 (Scalia, J., dissenting). (251.) See, e.g., Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. 424, 438-40 (2016) (pointing to multiple sections of the Alaska National Lands Conservation Act that treat Alaska as "unique" to sustain an argum......
  • The Impact of Sturgeon Ii on Alaska Subsistence Management: a Chance for Peace in the Jurisdiction Wars
    • United States
    • Duke University School of Law Alaska Law Review No. 36, December 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...Areas: How Can Alaska Thaw out Rural & Alaska Native Subsistence Rights?, 30 ALASKA L. REV. 71, 73 (2013). [4] Sturgeon v. Frost, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1062 [5]Id. at 1064. [6]Id. at 1062. [7] Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (1980) (codified at ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT