Supreme Court Watch: Of Moose And Men... And Hovercrafts
Dear SCOTUS, You Had Me At "Hovercraft-Owning Moose Hunter."
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted cert to one of the wackiest petitioners ever. His name is John Sturgeon and he uses a hovercraft to hunt moose from a river flowing through a national park.[1] How’s that for the perfect test case? This guy takes all the charm of Ted Nugent and raises it with a frigging hovercraft! If only we could harness his powers for the forces of good.
Or evil for that matter. Anything other than getting drunk and killing giant, lumbering animals from a speeding vehicle. Where’s the challenge? It’s not like bulls-eyeing a womp rat from a T16 back home.
How AI Is The Catalyst For Reshaping Every Aspect Of Legal Work
The state and Sturgeon both argued that, under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the agency has no authority over state-owned lands and rivers that are also “within the boundaries of National Park System units in Alaska.”
Take that preemption! Hey, it’s working for marijuana legalization, so maybe it can work for raining death upon Bullwinkle from the G.I. Joe Killer W.H.A.L.E. Actually, can we take a second to remember arguably the greatest toy of my childhood? The G.I. Joe team’s amphibious landing hovercraft was 4 lbs. of molded plastic joy. Maybe it was the fact that it was both a vehicle and a kind of base holding multiple action figures. Maybe it was the fact that it would float in water, making it a valuable accessory to any pool party. But it was probably because hovercrafts are just giant airboats and therefore interminably awesome.[2]
Both the trial judge and the Ninth Circuit smacked this challenge to the ground. As Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote for the unanimous Ninth Circuit panel:
Because the ban on hovercraft “applies to all federal-owned lands and waters administered by NPS nationwide, as well as all navigable waters lying within national parks,” it also applies to the Nation River and the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, the ruling said.
“Even assuming (without deciding) that the waters of and lands beneath the Nation River have been ‘conveyed to the state’, that subsection does not preclude the application and enforcement of the NPS regulation at issue,” Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote for the panel. “Because of its general applicability, the regulation may be enforced on both public and nonpublic lands alike.”
Sponsored
Profit Powerhouse: Elevating Law Firm Financial Performance
Are Small Firms Going Big On Legal Tech?
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Document Automation For Law Firms: The Definitive Guide
Which brings us to the terrifying realization that at least four justices think there’s something worth deciding in this otherwise open and shut case. Dare we say they feel the courts below floated over the important issues? Seriously though, are there really five votes for declaring national parks subservient to state law? Because turning over pristine wilderness to state legislatures entirely captured by energy and mineral interests would seem to undermine the entire purpose of having the federal government set this land aside. It’s easy enough to buy off federal legislators — buying a South Dakota House member must be bargain basement pricing. Obviously this is all preliminary tea leaf reading right now, but we should fully expect to be drilling for oil in Teddy Roosevelt’s head by the end of next year.
On the other hand… HOVERCRAFTS!
Hovercraft-Using Hunter Headed to the Supremes [Courthouse News]
[1] The state of Alaska also intervened with its own issue, which sounds like a slightly more serious party until you remember they once handed power to Sarah Palin.
[2] Up to and including the Alan Parsons Project, “which I believe was some sort of hovercraft.”