Print Edition

“Good Cause” Is Cause for Concern

James Yates 86 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1438 The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires that all federal administrative rules undergo public “notice and comment.” The “good cause” exception allows an agency to bypass this requirement where it would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In recent years, good cause has been increasingly...
Read More

Arguendo

On the Docket

On the Docket’s Preview of the November Supreme Court Arguments

November 5 Sturgeon v. Frost No. 17-949, 9th Cir. Preview by Clay Wild At issue in this case is whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”) prohibits the National Park Service (“NPS”) from regulating State, Native Corporation, and private land located within the National Park System in Alaska. In 2007, NPS rangers found John Sturgeon repairing his hovercraft along a river that runs through the National Park System in Alaska. The rangers informed Sturgeon that it was against the law to operate a hovercraft in the area. In response, Sturgeon asserted that the prohibition did not apply because he was on an Alaska-owned waterway. Sturgeon acquiesced, though he eventually filed suit challenging the NPS’s authority to prohibit hovercrafts in the area. ANILCA provides, in part, for NPS regulatory jurisdiction over “public lands” located in protected areas known as “conservation system unit[s]” (“CSU”). 16 U.S.C. § 3103(c) (2018). However, § 3103(c) of the statute excludes from NPS jurisdiction any land found within a CSU that is “conveyed to the State, to any Native Corporation, or to any private party.” Id. Sturgeon’s primary argument is that ANILCA’s plain text forbids the NPS...
Read More