Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2025

Abstract

The Antiquities Act empowers the President both to declare national monuments and to reserve the “smallest area” of land compatible with the preservation of such monuments. Modern Presidents have adopted expansive interpretations of those authorities—purporting, for example, to reserve entire “ecosystems” as national monuments, and to claim that the Act’s reference to “land” includes state-sized swaths of the ocean floor. Until recently, Presidents’ expansive readings of the Act have gone largely unchecked by courts. But in Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, Chief Justice Roberts expressed interest in reconsidering “[t]he scope of the objects that can be designated under the [Antiquities] Act, and how to measure the area necessary for their proper care and management.” This Essay will respond to the Chief Justice’s expression of interest by proposing how courts should review presidential declarations made pursuant to the Antiquities Act.

In short, interpretations of the Antiquities Act should be brought into the modern age of statutory interpretation—an age dominated by the rise of textualism and widespread applications of the major questions doctrine. Interpreting the Act’s provisions from the perspective of the ordinary reader (as textualists do), and asking whether the Act “clearly” gives the President “major” authority (as the major questions doctrine requires), would remedy the Chief Justice’s concern that the Act “has been transformed into a power without any discernible limit.”

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.