United States v. Alaska
The Supreme Court entered a final decree fixing the exact boundary line between Alaska's state-owned submerged coastal lands and the federally controlled outer continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea, ending a decades-long lawsuit over who can lease the seabed for oil and gas development.
The decree also settles how revenue from existing oil and gas leases in the once-disputed area will be divided between the state and federal governments, and it sets the coastal boundaries of two federal land reserves that affect the calculation.
How it got here: The United States filed an original Supreme Court lawsuit against Alaska in 1979; a Special Master held years of hearings, and the Court resolved the parties' exceptions to his report in 1997 before ordering a final decree.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The United States and the State of Alaska disagreed over which government could lease offshore areas of the Beaufort Sea for oil and gas exploration, and Alaska separately claimed ownership of coastal submerged lands inside two federal reserves, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (then Range). The dispute affected who could collect revenue from mineral leases in the contested offshore areas.
The question before the Court
Where exactly does the boundary lie between Alaska's state-owned coastal waters and the federally controlled outer continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea?
Why it matters
Oil and gas companies operating in the Beaufort Sea now know with certainty which government — Alaska or the federal government — controls leasing rights and collects revenue for any given tract, ending years of uncertainty that had left lease payments sitting in escrow accounts.
What changes now
The decree is final as to the boundary line and lease-revenue rules, though the Court retains jurisdiction to handle future disputes arising from the naturally shifting coastlines of the two federal reserves. Escrowed lease revenues must be distributed within 180 days under the terms the parties already agreed to, and future leasing rights in the area will follow the newly fixed boundary.
What this does not decide
The decree does not resolve future disputes that may arise as the reserves' coastal boundaries naturally shift over time; it leaves those to negotiation, alternative dispute resolution, or the Court's retained jurisdiction. It also does not alter existing lease agreements or third-party rights already in place.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Because this filing follows the Court's 1997 merits ruling resolving the parties' exceptions to the Special Master's report, the decree's role is to translate that legal ruling into a precise, enforceable boundary and revenue-distribution scheme.
- The decree draws a fixed line (Exhibit A) separating waters where the United States has exclusive rights to explore and develop resources from waters where Alaska has those exclusive rights under the Submerged Lands Act, subject to a statutory revenue-sharing provision for certain nearby federal leasing.
- For leases issued before the boundary was fixed, the decree applies different rules depending on whether the lease was already covered by an interim revenue-sharing agreement between the parties (called a '§ 7 Agreement') and whether the fixed boundary line cuts through that lease area.
- The decree separately defines the ambulatory (naturally shifting) coastal boundaries of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by reference to existing federal orders, since those reserves are carved out of the general state/federal dividing line.
- The Court retained jurisdiction to resolve future boundary disputes caused by the reserves' shifting coastlines, while treating the decree as otherwise final.