United States v. Alaska

Background

A dispute arose between the United States and the State of Alaska over who owns the land beneath the lower part of Cook Inlet, a long bay that reaches more than 150 miles into Alaska. Alaska had offered 2,500 acres of submerged land in the lower inlet for an oil and gas lease; the United States sued, arguing that the lower inlet is not a historic bay and so the federal government, not the State, controls the subsurface land. The inner part of the inlet is undisputedly state water, but the seaward portion is the subject of the case because the inlet’s natural entrance points lie far apart, triggering a special rule that requires proof the bay is "historic" to be treated as inland waters.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed whether Alaska showed the kind of long-standing, exclusive control that would make the inlet a historic bay. It identified three key elements: a state’s exercise of authority, continuity of that authority, and the acceptance or lack of protest by other nations. The Court found Russian-era facts (settlements, a trader firing, and an 1821 decree later withdrawn) insufficient. U.S. territorial enforcement of fishing rules and fishery maps was aimed at resource management, not at excluding foreign ships, so it did not show the exclusive control required. A 1962 incident in which Alaska boarded Japanese vessels in the Shelikof Strait was ambiguous, met with a protest from Japan, and did not establish clear international acquiescence.

Real world impact

By reversing the lower courts, the Court ruled that Alaska failed to prove Cook Inlet is a historic bay. That means the disputed seaward submerged lands remain under federal paramount rights rather than confirmed state ownership, affecting oil and gas leasing and state claims in the area. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices would have affirmed the lower courts; one Justice did not participate.