Summary Analysis
R-28
DATE: 2019-03-26
DOCKET: 17-949
NAME: John Sturgeon, Petitioner v. Bert Frost, in his official capacity as Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service, et al.
WORTHY: False
OPINION: Court
AUTHOR: Kagan
JOINING: Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 30
OPINION: Concurring
AUTHOR: Sotomayor
JOINING: Ginsburg
GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 12
Case Commentary
The Court's Opinion includes a nice History Lesson. And for that reason alone, it is worth reading.Of course, The Court has already seen this case once before (maybe more, but I'm pretty sure it was just the once) and may see it, yet again. So, it's had plenty of time to write up the History.
As I see it (meaning, this is what I believe, The Court determined), in Alaska, the State owns the rivers, so the National Park Service is unable to regulate those rivers, as if they were Part of a National Park.
It seems quite clear cut. And the decision was unanimous.
In Sotomayor's Crafty Concurring Opinion, she notes (or so, I would have you believe) there's nothing in the decision that says the National Park Service cannot regulate Alaskan Rivers, just that they cannot regulate those rivers as if they were Part of a National Park. It's a fine line distinction... that the rest of The Court does not appear to hold. Or at least, they have not weighed in on the matter. Probably, because it's the difference between Primary and Secondary Control and teasing apart those two levels of influence is a whole new can of worms.
Also, I see Sotomayor's Opinion as being a plea for Congress to get its act together and pass clarifying regulations.