October Term 2018 · Docket 17-949

Does the Park Service regulate private waters in Alaska?

The dispute centers on whether federal law allows the Park Service to regulate private waterways within national monuments.

Official caption
Sturgeon v. Frost
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Findley argued that the United States does not hold title to these waters. He stated that private waters are not public lands. He contended the Park Service cannot regulate them under the Organic Act.

    Ms. Botstein argued that understanding the law requires understanding remote Alaska. She noted that rivers serve as the only roads in vast wilderness areas. She emphasized the practical necessity of these waterways for local communities.

    Mr. Kneedler identified two statutes that he believes are crucial to understanding the law at issue. He argued these statutes provide important context for the provisions under review.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of federal authority over private lands in Alaska. the side that brought the case argues the Park Service lacks jurisdiction over private waters. the opposing side argues the agency must regulate these areas to fulfill statutory duties.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 5, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to limit the Park Service authority over private waters.

the opposing side wants the Court to uphold the Park Service authority over private waters.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the United States lacks title to these waters. Therefore, they are not public lands. The Park Service cannot regulate them.

the opposing side argues the statute places duties on the government. The Park Service must regulate these areas to meet those obligations.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked how the Park Service fulfills statutory duties if it cannot regulate these lands.

Justice Kagan asked how the federalism argument applies to agency authority in this context.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between federal agency power and private property rights in remote Alaska. It determines whether the government can regulate private waterways within national monuments. The outcome shapes the balance of federal and state authority over natural resources.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON