United States v. Alaska

Background

The dispute began when the city of Nome sought federal permits in 1982 to build a causeway, breakwater, and offshore terminal extending into Norton Sound. The Interior Department’s Solicitor warned that the project could create an artificial addition to the coastline and thus change the baseline used to measure state submerged‑land boundaries. The Army Corps of Engineers told Alaska that it would not issue the §10 permit unless the State executed a disclaimer preserving the preproject coastline; Alaska submitted a conditional disclaimer reserving the right to challenge that requirement. A later proposed federal lease sale in Norton Sound and continuing disagreement about the boundary led the United States to file this suit and seek summary judgment against Alaska.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Secretary of the Army may condition a §10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit on a State’s disclaimer of any change in the federal‑state boundary caused by artificial additions. The Court reviewed the statute, prior cases, and Army Corps regulations and concluded §10 is broad and permits a “public interest” review. The Corps’ regulations expressly allow consideration of effects on the coastline and coordination with the Solicitor and Attorney General. The Court rejected Alaska’s arguments that the Submerged Lands Act or international‑boundary concerns forbid such consideration, and found the Corps’ actions lawful and not arbitrary or capricious.

Real world impact

The decision affirms that federal permit authorities can require states to disclaim claims to accreted submerged lands when projects threaten federal interests. It makes it harder for a State to gain seabed rights simply by building artificial coastline additions and protects federal leasing and coastal management interests, while leaving procedural and later judicial challenges available.