This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/22/supreme-court-backs-alaska-hunter-national-parks-service

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme court backs Alaska hunter's lone fight against federal agency Alaska’s hovercraft-riding moose hunter wins lone fight against federal agency
(35 minutes later)
An Alaska moose hunter kicked out of a wild area in the state’s far north because the National Park Service did not like his use of a hovercraft has a won a unanimous US supreme court ruling against the federal agency. An Alaska moose hunter kicked out of a wild area in the state’s far north because the National Park Service did not like his use of a hovercraft has won a unanimous US supreme court ruling against the federal agency.
Related: Court upholds federal plan to protect vast polar bear habitat in AlaskaRelated: Court upholds federal plan to protect vast polar bear habitat in Alaska
But while the victory is a major one for hunter John Sturgeon, the decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts sets the stage for a whole new round of legal wrangling.But while the victory is a major one for hunter John Sturgeon, the decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts sets the stage for a whole new round of legal wrangling.
The supreme court overturned the Sturgeon case on what it said was a lower court’s misinterpretation of some wording in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, but it did not stop there. It sent the case back to the lower court saying it needed to address a far bigger issue: the “vital issues of state sovereignty, on the one hand, and federal authority, on the other”. The supreme court overturned the Sturgeon case on what it said was a lower court’s misinterpretation of some wording in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, but it did not stop there. It sent the case back to the lower court, saying it needed to address a far bigger issue: the “vital issues of state sovereignty, on the one hand, and federal authority, on the other”.
“It’s pretty significant,” Sturgeon said. “[But] we’re not out of the woods yet.”“It’s pretty significant,” Sturgeon said. “[But] we’re not out of the woods yet.”
Noting controversial confrontations between people in the west and the federal government, some of which have ended in violence in recent years, he said, it was nice when people talk about taking on government in the right way, but the costs were huge. Already $755,000 into the litigation, he was planning to meet his attorney later this week to decide what to do next. Noting controversial confrontations between people in the west and the federal government, some of which have ended in violence in recent years, Sturgeon said it was nice when people talk about taking on government in the right way, but the costs are huge. Already $755,000 into the litigation, he was planning to meet his attorney later this week to decide what to do next.
The state of Alaska has backed Sturgeon’s case in court and in the arena of public opinion, but “they haven’t contributed a penny to this thing”, he said. “That’s discouraging, but the bottom line is that it does cost a fortune.”The state of Alaska has backed Sturgeon’s case in court and in the arena of public opinion, but “they haven’t contributed a penny to this thing”, he said. “That’s discouraging, but the bottom line is that it does cost a fortune.”
At a hastily convened press conference Tuesday morning, Alaska governor Bill Walker praised the decision for making clear “Alaska is unique.” He noted the case was “a long way from over,’’ but observed that it has been sent back to the Circuit Court “with the appropriate tone’’.“We are very proud and pleased to work with and support Mr Sturgeon,’’ Walker said, but the only financial assistance he offered was a pledge to add his name to Sturgeon’s private fund-raising efforts. Alaska is facing a more than $3.5 billion budget shortfall because of falling tax revenues in the wake of the decline in global oil prices.State senator Cathy Giessel, an Anchorage Republican , who has contributed to Sturgeon’s legal fund, said later that the ruling puts lawmakers in a difficult spot. They are already taking heat for cutting spending on seniors and education. Funding a big legal battle with the feds would surely draw objections from some corners, she said. At a hastily convened press conference Tuesday morning, Alaska governor Bill Walker praised the decision for making clear “Alaska is unique.” He noted the case was “a long way from over” but observed that it has been sent back to the circuit court “with the appropriate tone”.
Still, the chair of the Senate Resources Committee was of the opinion that the issues now in play are so large that if Sturgeon cannot afford to go forward the state will have to open its checkbook.“In a sense, it’s up to John,’’ she said. “We are very proud and pleased to work with and support Mr Sturgeon,” Walker said, but the only financial assistance he offered was a pledge to add his name to Sturgeon’s private fundraising efforts. Alaska is facing a more than $3.5bn budget shortfall because of falling tax revenues in the wake of the decline in global oil prices.
Sovereignty issues are complicated in the 49th state where the federal government owns most of the land, but the state and 13 regional Native corporations control vast acreages. About 104m acres of land, an area the size of Colorado, are controlled by the state with another 44m acres, an area about the size of Ohio, in the hands of the Native corporations. State senator Cathy Giessel, an Anchorage Republican who has contributed to Sturgeon’s legal fund, said that the ruling puts lawmakers in a difficult spot. They are already taking heat for cutting spending on seniors and education. Funding a big legal battle with the federal government would surely draw objections from some corners, she said.
However, it is not as simple as federal, state and Native land ownership. Alaska Native tribes, which are separate entities from the Native corporations, have long fought to maintain federal oversight of hunting, fishing and other activities on both federal and state lands. Still, the chair of the state senate resources committee was of the opinion that the issues now in play are so large that if Sturgeon cannot afford to go forward, the state will have to open its checkbook.
“In a sense, it’s up to John,’’ she said.
Sovereignty issues are complicated in the 49th state, where the federal government owns most of the land but the state and 13 regional Native corporations control vast acreages. About 104m acres of land – an area the size of Colorado – are controlled by the state, with another 44m acres – about the size of Ohio – in the hands of the Alaska Native corporations.
However it is not as simple as federal, state and Native land ownership. Alaska Native tribes, which are separate entities from the Native corporations, have long fought to maintain federal oversight of hunting, fishing and other activities on both federal and state lands.
The tribes won a major victory in 1996 when the court of appeals ruled that the federal government had the authority to regulate both state and federal waters in Alaska. A request from the state that the supreme court review that decision was denied in 2014.The tribes won a major victory in 1996 when the court of appeals ruled that the federal government had the authority to regulate both state and federal waters in Alaska. A request from the state that the supreme court review that decision was denied in 2014.
At the time, the state argued the 1996 case “involves fundamental questions of control and authority over navigable waters in the state”. Those questions remain unanswered. How broadly the appeals court will address them remains to be seen, but it has clearly been directed to look at them at least in part. At the time, the state argued the 1996 case “involves fundamental questions of control and authority over navigable waters in the state”. Those questions remain unanswered, and how broadly the appeals court will address them remains to be seen.