United States v. Alaska

Background

The United States and the State of Alaska fought over who owns submerged lands off Alaska’s Arctic Coast. The dispute centered on the Beaufort Sea and two federal reservations: the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Range/Refuge. A Special Master held years of hearings and issued a report. Alaska objected to several findings; the United States also filed exceptions. Lease sales and large escrowed lease proceeds were held pending this decision.

Reasoning

The Court addressed three core questions in plain terms: how to measure Alaska’s coastline for the 3-mile grant, whether a small feature called Dinkum Sands qualifies as an island, and whether federal actions before statehood kept certain submerged lands under U.S. control. The Court applied the 1958 Convention baseline rules, rejected Alaska’s 10-mile rule, and held the normal low-water baseline controls. It agreed that Dinkum Sands is frequently below mean high water and therefore not an island. The Court also found that federal acts — including the 1923 Executive Order plus Congress’s Statehood Act for the Petroleum Reserve, and the 1957 refuge application together with an Interior regulation and §6(e) of the Statehood Act for the Arctic Refuge — operated to keep those submerged lands in federal hands.

Real world impact

The decision keeps federal control over large areas of Arctic seabed and the authority to lease and manage oil and gas there. It limits Alaska’s ability to claim those offshore revenues. The Court directed the parties to prepare a final decree and left implementation steps to follow.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia) agreed on baselines and Dinkum Sands but dissented as to the holdings that federal reservations defeated Alaska’s title, urging a stricter “express retention” test.