SCOTUS Decides Sturgeon v. Frost II

Here is the opinion.

Materials here.

Update — footnote 2 of the majority:

As noted earlier, the Ninth Circuit has held in three cases—the so called Katie John trilogy—that the term “public lands,” when used in ANILCA’s subsistence-fishing provisions, encompasses navigable waters like the Nation River. See Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F. 3d 698 (1995); John v. United States, 247 F. 3d 1032 (2001) (en banc); John v. United States, 720 F. 3d 1214 (2013); supra, at 12. Those provisions are not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s holdings that the Park Service may regulate subsistence fishing on navigable waters. See generally Brief for State of Alaska as Amicus Curiae 29–35 (arguing that this case does not implicate those decisions); Brief for Ahtna, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 30–36 (same). 

Sturgeon v. Frost II Background Materials

Merits Briefs:

Petitioner’s Brief

States’ Amicus Brief

Respondents’ Brief

Alaska Amicus Brief

National Parks Conservation Association Amicus Brief

Law Professors’ Brief

Alaska Native Subsistence Users Amicus Brief

Reply Brief

Cert Stage Briefs:

Cert Petition

Alaska Amicus Brief in Support of Cert Petition

Federal Brief in Opposition to Cert

Cert Stage Reply

Lower court materials:

Opinion in Sturgeon v. Masica.

Alaska Brief

Enviro Groups Brief

Federal Brief

Mentasta Traditional Village et al Brief

Sturgeon Brief

Materials in Sturgeon v. Frost I:

SCOTUS Opinion