The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could have huge implications for the government’s authority to regulate state and private property bordering lands controlled by federal agencies.
At issue is a National Park Service regulation banning an Alaskan man from riding his hovercraft through a conservation area to hunt moose. Park rangers arrested John Sturgeon in 2007 for riding his hovercraft on the Nation river, citing a federal regulation banning hovercrafts.
Sturgeon argued federal regulations have no force because the Nation River is owned by the state of Alaska — the state allows hovercrafts on the river. Sturgeon says park service regulations are limited to federal lands, not state lands owned by the state.
Since 1996, the National Park Service has applied its hovercraft ban on federal lands to cover navigable waters within conservation area boundaries — even if they are owned by the state.
A federal appeals court disagreed with Sturgeon and ruled in favor of the government, based on the reasoning that park service rules are only limited “if they are Alaska-specific,” according to Reuters. This means “national regulations like the hovercraft ban could be interpreted more expansively to cover land within a conservation area not federally owned,” Reuters noted.
But things seem to be turning around in the Supreme Court, as all of the nine justices seemed skeptical of the appeals court’s interpretation of the law from which the parks service issued its hovercraft ban.
“It’s a ridiculous interpretation, is it not?” Justice Samuel Alito said of the appeals court ruling Wednesday.
Sturgeon has been supported by the state of Alaska, two U.S. senators, native tribes, sportsmen groups and mining companies. Alaska’s congressional delegation argues when “courts defer to implausible agency interpretations of statutory language… they are undermining the separation of powers.” The added: “That is what has happened in this case.”
The case may seem Alaska-specific, but the court’s ruling could have huge implications for federal lands regulations — a huge issue for western states. The federal government owns 640 million acres of land, mostly west of the Mississippi. That means ranchers, miners, oil and gas drillers and others have to deal with federal land management agents for all sorts of business activities.
This case could end up restricting the regulatory authority federal agencies, like the National Park Service, have over private, state and even tribal lands bordering or cutting through federally-controlled lands.
“That holding reaches far beyond a single hovercraft traversing the Alaskan wilds. Federal conservation system units sprawl across a massive proportion of Alaska’s lands and waters,” the Pacific Legal Foundation wrote of the appeals court ruling in a brief submitted in support of Sturgeon.
“Many Alaskans live in and rely upon state, private, and Native land within these units. Upholding the lower courts’ authorization of federal power over these non-federal lands will hurt the livelihoods and recreational pursuits of all Alaskans,” PLF wrote.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
