In Sturgeon v. Frost, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that the National Park Service cannot enforce its general regulations on state-owned, Native Corporation, or private lands and waters that sit inside the boundaries of Alaska’s federal conservation units. The decision turned on a provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that Congress wrote specifically to keep non-federal property inside those boundaries from being swept under Park Service control.1Justia. Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. (2019)
The Hovercraft Stop That Started It
John Sturgeon was piloting his hovercraft up the Nation River in the fall of 2007, headed to a moose hunting area he had used for years. The river runs through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Three NPS rangers stopped him and told him that operating a hovercraft anywhere in the National Park System was a federal crime under a nationwide Park Service rule.2Justia. Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. 424 (2016)
Sturgeon complied and then sued. His argument: the Nation River is a navigable waterway, Alaska holds title to the land beneath navigable waters, and Alaska law permits hovercraft. The river sat inside the preserve only because Congress had drawn the preserve’s boundaries along natural features rather than around federally owned land.
The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit both ruled against him. The Supreme Court took the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s first decision in 2016, and sent it back with two questions. When the Ninth Circuit again sided with the government, Sturgeon appealed a second time.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The 2019 ruling answered both open questions in Sturgeon’s favor.
The Court first held that the Nation River is not “public land” under ANILCA. The statute defines public lands as land where the United States holds title. The Submerged Lands Act gives states title to the land beneath navigable waters within their borders, so Alaska, not the federal government, owns the riverbed.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 43 U.S. Code 1311 – Rights of States Even if the federal government holds a reserved water-rights interest in the river, an interest is not title, and ANILCA requires title.1Justia. Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. (2019)
The Court then found no other source of Park Service authority. Section 103(c) of ANILCA provides that no land conveyed to the state, to a Native Corporation, or to a private party within a conservation unit is subject to regulations that apply solely to public lands within those units.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 16 U.S. Code 3103 – Maps The nationwide NPS hovercraft ban is exactly that kind of rule, and Section 103(c) blocks it from reaching non-federal property inside park boundaries.
Why Alaska Gets Treated Differently
ANILCA, enacted in 1980, set aside 104 million acres of federal land in Alaska for preservation and created ten new parks, monuments, and preserves. Instead of drawing park boundaries tightly around federally owned parcels, Congress followed rivers, ridgelines, and other natural features. That choice pulled more than 18 million acres of state, Native Corporation, and private land inside the new park boundaries.1Justia. Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. (2019)
Section 103(c) was Congress’s safety valve. Private, state, and Native Corporation lands that ended up inside a conservation unit were not supposed to become subject to Park Service rules they had never been subject to before. Treating every acre inside a park boundary as federal parkland would have taken a great deal of property from owners who held those parcels long before the parks existed.
No comparable statute exists for parks in the lower 48, where units were generally built from land the federal government already owned or acquired specifically for the park.
What Changes on the Ground
The ruling removed NPS regulatory authority over a significant amount of land and water inside Alaska’s parks. Native Corporations alone own more than 1.4 million acres within NPS-managed units in Alaska, and state-owned navigable waterways run through nearly every conservation unit. After the decision, the Park Service issued a final rule acknowledging that its general regulations do not apply to non-federally-owned lands within Alaska park boundaries, and that waters flowing over non-federal submerged lands are not regulated as part of the park.
For people using those parks, the most visible shift is on rivers. Hovercraft operation, fishing, hunting, and similar activities on a navigable waterway inside an Alaska preserve answer to state regulators, not NPS rangers. The same activity on the bank, if the bank is federal land, still falls under NPS rules. A person can legally do something in the middle of a river that would be prohibited ten feet away on shore.
What the Decision Does Not Reach
The holding is narrower than it is sometimes described.
- Only Park Service regulations are affected. Other federal agencies with independent statutory authority still regulate activity on non-federal land inside Alaska parks. The EPA enforces clean water and air standards; the Coast Guard enforces boating safety laws. Section 103(c) does not reach them.1Justia. Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. (2019)
- Parks outside Alaska are unaffected. The case turned entirely on ANILCA, which applies only to Alaska’s conservation system units.
- NPS regulations still apply with full force to the 104 million acres of federal land ANILCA set aside. The ruling limits NPS authority only over the non-federal inholdings swept inside park boundaries.
- Federal protections for subsistence access by rural Alaska residents remain intact under separate legal authority.