[Created Feb. 11, 2016]
Ocean and coastal law is ever changing and dynamic, each decision setting the precedent for future cases. The history of law sets a path for the future, and the history of a case can decide a holding. By exploring four US Supreme Court cases, the development of laws can be further understood. The four cases in question are Alaska vs. United States, Phillips Petroleum Company vs. Mississippi, Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois, and Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp. vs Commonwealth. These cases are among the early precedent of modern day marine law, covering both submerged land ownership and the public trust doctrine. It’s important to note that prior to any of the before mentioned cases, the equal footing doctrine has already been in use for sometime, granting new states entering the Union the same rights to submerged lands as the original 13 states.
Submerged land laws dictate the ownership of underwater ground along the coastline of states, and out in open ocean. Precedent from previous cases determined that states have a right to bordering submerged lands upon entering the union on terms of the equal footing doctrine. This doctrine was created between the Martine vs. Lessee and Shively vs. Bowlby cases[1]. Prior to Phillips Petroleum Company vs. Mississippi, submerged lands under state title were defined as tidal and “navigable in fact”. The conflict in this case was the State leased land for oil and gas drilling, along with the ownership of 42 acres of land by Phillips Petroleum Company[2]. Mississippi claimed the land was theirs under equal footing rights, while the Company claimed the land under title purchase. While deliberating this case, the Court reviewed statements by fellow states wishing for the Court to side with Mississippi for precedent sake. The outcome of this case would decide the future of state power over small private companies in terms of submerged land ownership. In the end, the US Supreme Court held with Mississippi state, redefining what waters were given to the state under equal footing. Public trust would henceforth claim “all land underlying non-navigable tidal waters, and all land that has been under tidal waters at any time since the American Revolution”[3]. Granting this holding increased state rights to submerged lands, by widening the definition of the lands. States were also decreed to have the right of leasing their own land, but noting that the state still holds title ownership. Years later, after the modification of defining what land belongs to a state upon entering the Union, Alaska filed claim to two bodies of “Alaskan” water in Alaska vs. United States.
The Alexander Archipelago and Glacier Bay are two bodies of water that in 2007 the US Supreme Court deemed under federal ownership, after Alaska tried to reclaim title under the equal footing doctrine. When Alaska became part of the Union, the federal government withheld the title ownership of these two waters. Wishing to claim control of resources and commerce, Alaska filed two separate complaints, one for each body of water. First dealing with the Archipelago, a government can claim any water body as long as they have proof of historical use in international defense, or controlling both innocent and aggressive forms of navigation. Even though Russia used these waters for defense, when Russia held Alaska they didn’t use Alexander Archipelago to control peaceful navigation. Meanwhile, since entering the Union, the US has used this same strip of water for both international security and navigation. This minute detail lost Alaska it’s right to historical claim. Alaska vs United States is a perfect example how historical use of waters is so important to deciding a case’s outcome. The historical proceedings of this zone determined the US federal government to own the title rights of the land.
If no clear history can be determined, the Supreme Court can turn to geographical references to determine ownership. In the equal footing doctrine, inland waters were given to the state. For the Alaska state government to claim Glacier Bay, they would need to define the waters as inland juridical bays, and not territorial seas. Unfortunately for Alaska, this definition didn’t pass. In the end, Glacier Bay’s title was settled on two main premises, the first being that national commerce and resources overrule state commerce and resources. The second matter decided was that the US had clearly set aside Glacier Bay as a national reserve in the past for the protection of wildlife and resources. The real key in this preserve was that it was not only bound to land, but also to the Bay waters[4]
Phillips Petroleum Company vs. Mississippi and Alaska vs. United States both aided in the formation of future precedent for cases involving the circumstances under which title is granted to state versus federal power. Having a strong foundation of federal versus state power is important when entering into the concept of public trust doctrine. When conflicts expand into private versus state ownership, there needs to be a basis for what the state has power to grant to private privilege. Quieting title disputes is important for knowing who is required to maintain what upkeep, and who has access to resources, navigation, and commerce.
There are a few basic laws surrounding the foundation of the public trust doctrine. The state can hold property out of private control for the interest of public use. While the definition of public use can change over time, it has been generally accepted through time to be uses of fishery, navigation, and commerce. Two large cases that helped evolve the public trust guidelines were Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp vs Commonwealth, and Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois. In the former, a dispute arose over who owned a parcel of land extending from the end of a wharf into the Boston Harbor. The Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp (BWDC) wished to keep the land in their title rights, but the Commonwealth claimed the land was for public trust. Throughout the proceedings of this case English Law and The Lewis Wharf Statues were considered for precedent, and it was determined by the Supreme Court that BWDC had fee simple title. While having this title allowed them ownership, the BWDC was also subject to special regulation of usage and legislature. If these terms were broken, it was within the state’s right to claim back the land into the public trust. This case set forth the precedent that fee simple title could mean simple ownership under certain accordance and legislative uses, but not full control. What happens though when lands reemerge from submersion? Changing direction and back tracking through history, Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois deals with this very issue.
Multitudes of laws have been put in place over time about the public trust doctrine and how it protects the rights of the people. Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois focuses on something else entirely. The issue in this case focused around who owns lands that were once submerged but no longer are, and how ownership impacts the public interest. This case resulted in a new set of rationale, that the state still owns land even once it’s modified to no longer be submerged lands. The first interest over private is that of the people, and ownership lies with the party ready to serve the public trust. Even though others may improve upon newly dry lands, “like lands under navigable waters, they cannot be placed entirely beyond the direction and control of the State”[5]. Perhaps not pertinent at the time, this precedent will be crucial moving forward as climate change and sea level rising continues to become a prominent global issue. Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp vs. Commonwealth and Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois are two cases that expanded the definition of what the public trust doctrine entails. The former redefined how ownership and control relate, and the latter how to handle situations with land that is no longer what it once was.
All of these cases were critical changing points in the policy and precedent of submerged lands and public trust. While none of the cases formed the base of what legal matters were followed, they showed exceptions of how law shifts and changes over time. The most compelling type of court case are the ones between a state and another party. The first impression of a state vs. any other party in the average American mind is how the state will win the court holding, and yet Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp vs. Commonwealth and Alaska vs. United States, both showed how the state could be overturned by the federal decision. As history continues it’ll be interesting to see how far back in history courts track cases, and how previous cases will impact the trials over matters related to a changing global climate.
[1] Ownership and Boundaries of Submerged Lands, Marine and Coastal Law, 2nd ed, Dennis W. Nixon, Michael J. Daley, Susan E. Farady (ABC – CLIO, 2010), 1.
[2] Phillips Petroleum Company vs. Mississippi, Ownership and Boundaries of Submerged Lands, Marine and Coastal Law, 2nd ed, Dennis W. Nixon, Michael J. Daley, Susan E. Farady (ABC – CLIO, 2010), 27.
[3] Ibid, 34.
[4] Alaska vs United States, Ownership and Boundaries of Submerged Lands, Marine and Coastal Law, 2nd ed, Dennis W. Nixon, Michael J. Daley, Susan E. Farady (ABC – CLIO, 2010), 18.
[5] Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois, Ownership and Boundaries of Submerged Lands, Marine and Coastal Law, 2nd ed, Dennis W. Nixon, Michael J. Daley, Susan E. Farady (ABC – CLIO, 2010), 45.
