a full century after that law as an act meant the president st asserted the significant and novel of forty days in national monuments in areas of which the federal government exercises only limited authority including this area of the ocean at issue here finally interpretation cannot be summary of the take these acts text which limits national monuments to quote land owner controlled by the federal government which as a fish circuit correctly held excludes the ocean be on the territorial sea now in the interest of time i'm going to focus my remarks religion federal authority is of limited scope their interpretation comes from the text of the statute understanding the supreme court said that even if a dictionary definition would admit of a reign of interpretations of a word it doesn't mean that the br interpretation is the ordinary meaning of that word for purposes of a statute and here we know that that brought his interpretation which the government offers is not the correct interpretation of it into the text because congress chose to group the control do you think control for purposes of antiquities act has a different mention meaning control in the outer continental shelf i do and i think context provides the reason for that obviously in the context of the where they're defining an area that is beyond the territory as he has control for purposes of that statute control must include that area but in the intake it is actually don't have that sort of context there is no evidence in the texas  this statute as well as i'm sure she's the under international law or the federal government can protect certain resources from certain activities that authority comes from different statutes so one of the primary ones is the reason for his act as well as  this very area to protect and preserve maintain prevent people from moving into the waters consistent with international law  consistent with international law for purposes of that statute yes but as members of much of statute yes and in generally when it has done so the context makes clear that congress is defining that term to include the area and we have none of that context  authority is exclusive as to the states but that doesn't speak to the extent of federal authority in the text of the entities act the history of its implementation and its purpose show that the american th day government federal a new population somewhat expanded federal authority to recognize someone expanding federal authority but still ignore the day when you say this power that was inserted to conserve and manage natural resources that's not and to preserve marine environment that's statutorily mind control in this area you know under the un convention this area is generally treated as high seas except to the extent that the nearest nation is given certain rights to regulate mostly regulating fisheries as well as regula and so the government can fish really activities in the pool that doesn't own the actual but liquid so that under most western states in most western water law you only have the rights to certain uses of water and that's why the reserve areas in which that control existed federal land indian lands federal territories and in congress overruled it the territorial sea it was only in two thousand and six a year one hundred years after the statute was an act that the president don't feel like you can disagree with the supreme court's very considered statements and some might argue on the actual holding at least one of the cases i completely ok so if some urge lands are in are you still making  textural argument that submerged lands are not lands if they are just outside a few feet outside the territorial waters that would be land if with  interpret the phrase under control in a way that would exclude private property or interpretation does that and i do the other interpretations do if there are no more questions i will reserve it for ten seconds i have a  that the submerged lands in the territorial sea were under the control of the united states for purposes of the antiquities act even though other states in the united states exercise police powers over that area and at the time  under international law there are certain freedoms of navigation the territorial suit as well and in that case the court recognized that the united states control over the territorial sea was broad but it wasn't exclusive and that's a case that squarely interpreted the meaning of the word control in the entities act applying it to an area where the united states actually sizes more control than it does over to easy but not absolute control which is the preferred interpretation of my colleague that piers was also decided against the backdrop of at the time more than fifty years i believe of presidents of both parties designated there are areas hypothetically that could be designated as sanctuaries that could not be designated as monuments and those are areas with only recreational and human used values but that did not have objects of historic or scientific interest and it's clear from the text of the sanctuaries acts the use of the language that the secretary congress has power under the sanctuary zakk to designate sanctuaries when existing forms of protection are inadequate that what congress was invision in with the sanctuary's act was a cafe only measure where the secretary could come in at more stringent regulations in an area that was already protected and again one can see how this could play out in practice there was an area that was  designated a monument through presidential proclamation but decades later more recent scientific evidence demonstrated that he did to be more stringent actions of that area and congress gave its secretary of commerce a tool to do just disagreement president carter's designation of monuments in alaska there have actually been there is at least one instance of congress disagreeing with the president's designation of a national monument deciding that land was better served as land owned by the state and transfer conflict with the statute with our interpretation of government interpretation of the statute and that would require the statute to reach private property that's simply not true our interpretation of control is not merely the authority to regulate it is the what president reagan incorporated be specific provisions including the sovereign right to explore exploit conserve and manage the natural resources living and non living of not just the seabed in the subsoil which is the outer continental shelf regime but also the water column so the easy mark to dramatic expansion of u s authority in this area and specifically the type of authority that's needed to achieve the purposes of a monument reservation in yet exactly here on that the th circuit case was looking at a totally different set of facts from what we have in two thousand and sixteen when this monument was established and now and i think importantly there's a textual hook here too if you look at subsection b of the assumes the power to manage so wherever the president's realm of the president's authority extends the federal government needs that power to manage we don't have the federal government does not have the power to manage private lands it has the power to regulate private lands but as judge millette pointed out there are no private landowners in the easies there are no other sovereigns with sovereign rights there are no state governments so this is an area where the federal government has doesn't need to rely on the powers that the u s has in the contiguous on because the powers the u s has throughout the city provide for jurisdiction and sovereign rights to protect the united states the protect the marine environments from from harm and that's part of the sovereign right and jurisdiction over the protection preservation of the marine environment and think u s government has even brought has you know rod southern rights and jurisdiction for all purposes regulations so for example in monuments and sanctuaries in the explicit economic zone the federal government has a permanent system and negotiates with rd parties other countries about the route of cables and pipelines so for example if the federal government determined it was necessary to see my time is expired or on any thanks and if the federal government determine it is necessary for the proper care and management of the objects in the mine to route a pipeline given holdings which are private property surrounded by federal government and owners that property have the right to pass over federal property get to it but that doesn't change the fact that the federal government has pervasive authority to regulate it to be on federal land like it has a material seat but doesn't have on