View source for Alaska v. Arctic Maid

{{Short description|Supreme Court of the United States case}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants               = Alaska v. Arctic Maid
| ArgueDate               = March 23
| ArgueYear               = 1961
| DecideDate              = May 1
| DecideYear              = 1961
| FullName                = Alaska v. Arctic Maid, et al.
| USVol                   = 366
| USPage                  = 199
| ParallelCitations       =
| Prior                   = ''Arctic Maid v. Territory of Alaska'', 277 [[Federal Reporter#Federal Reporter.2C Second Series|F.2d]] 120 ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 1960)
| Subsequent              =
| Holding                 = Alaska's statute imposing an annual tax on freezer ships does not violate the [[commerce clause]].
| Majority                = [[s:Alaska v. Arctic Maid/Opinion of the Court|Douglas]]
| JoinMajority            = Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Clark, Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart
| Dissent                 = [[s:Alaska v. Arctic Maid/Dissent Harlan|Harlan]]
| JoinDissent             =
| Dissent2                =
| JoinDissent2            =
| LawsApplied = [[Commerce Clause|U.S. Const. art. I sec. 8 clause 3]]
}}
{{wikisource|Alaska v. Arctic Maid|''Alaska v. Arctic Maid''}}
'''''Alaska v. Arctic Maid''''', 366 U.S. 199 (1961), is a [[Judgment (law)|decision]] by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of an Alaskan law that imposed an annual tax on [[reefer ship|freezer ships]] operating in Alaskan waters, even if the fish onboard is canned and sold in another state.
==Background==
Before Alaska was [[Alaska Statehood Act|granted statehood]] in 1959, Alaska was a [[Territories of the United States|U.S. Territory]] whose laws were governed by the First Territorial Legislature of Alaska.<ref>{{cite web |title=First Territorial Legislature of Alaska |url=https://www.nps.gov/people/first-territorial-legislature-of-alaska.htm |website=[[National Park Service]] |access-date=May 2, 2023}}</ref> In 1951, the Territorial Legislature amended the [[Tax law|tax code]] to levy an annual licensing tax on persons or corporations operating [[Reefer ship|freezer ships]] in Alaska's territorial waters for [[commercial fishing]].<ref name="Syllabus">''Alaska v. Arctic Maid'', 366 U.S. at 199 (syllabus).</ref> The tax was to be "equal to 4% of the value of the raw halibut, halibut livers and viscera, salmon and bottom fish, shellfish or other fishing resource bought or otherwise obtained for processing through freezing".<ref name="TwoHundred">''Alaska v. Arctic Maid'', 366 U.S. at 200.</ref>
Several fisheries operated freezer ships in the [[Bristol Bay]] area, which was "a famous fishing ground for [[salmon]]".<ref name="TwoHundred" /> Because of Bristol Bay's shallow waters, salmon would be caught by small "catcher boats", then transported to larger freezer ships docked about three miles from the shoreline. The freezer ships would serve as the "base" for the fisheries' operations and would sometimes be inside Alaska's territorial waters, which extended three miles from the coast, and would sometimes be beyond it.<ref name="TwoHundredOne">''Alaska v. Arctic Maid'', 366 U.S. at 201.</ref> On the freezer ships, the salmon would be frozen and kept in cold storage before eventually being sent to [[Puget Sound]] in the [[Washington (state)|State of Washington]] for canning.<ref name="TwoHundredOne" />
Alaska filed suit against seven fisheries, including Arctic Maid Fisheries, to collect taxes that the fisheries had not paid.<ref name="News-Miner">{{cite news |title=Okays State Tax on Ships |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/123919447/okays-state-tax-on-ships/ |access-date=May 2, 2023 |work=[[Fairbanks Daily News-Miner]] |date=May 2, 1961 |location=Fairbanks, Alaska}}</ref> The fisheries countersued, claiming that the law was an invalid burden on [[Commerce Clause#Substantial Impact on Interstate Commerce|interstate commerce]] because the salmon, although caught in Alaskan waters, was canned and sold on the market in Washington State.<ref>{{cite news |title=Alaska Wins Legal battle to Tax Freezer Ships |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-nome-nugget-alaska-wins-legal-battle/123923465/ |access-date=May 2, 2023 |work=[[The Nome Nugget]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=September 7, 1962}}</ref> The [[United States District Court for the District of Alaska|District Court of Alaska]] held in favor of the fisheries, finding that the freezing of fish is not a taxable event.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants=Territory of Alaska v. the Arctic Maid|court=[[D. Alaska]]|reporter=F. Supp.|vol=140|opinion=190|date=1956|url=https://casetext.com/case/territory-of-alaska-v-the-arctic-maid-2}}</ref> The state of Alaska appealed the decision to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]], which heard oral arguments on January 13, 1958.<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 19, 1957 |title=Fish Processing Case in Circuit Court Jan. 13 |pages=8 |work=[[Fairbanks Daily News-Miner]] |agency=Associated Press |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/fairbanks-daily-news-miner-fish-processi/135593235/ |access-date=November 22, 2023}}</ref> The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the fisheries on March 23, 1960.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants=The Arctic Maid v. Territory of Alaska|vol=277|reporter=[[F.2d]]|opinion=120|court=[[9th Cir.]]|date=1960}}</ref>
==Opinion of the Court==
Oral arguments were held on March 23, 1961. Gary Thurlow argued the case for Alaska and Martin Detels Jr. argued the case for the fisheries.<ref>{{cite web |title=Alaska v. Arctic Maid |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/106 |website=[[Oyez Project]] |publisher=[[Chicago-Kent College of Law]] |access-date=May 2, 2023}}</ref> In an 8–1 opinion delivered by Justice [[William O. Douglas]], the Court held that the statute does not violate the [[commerce clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]]'s [[Article One of the United States Constitution|First Article]].<ref name="Syllabus" /> Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II|John M. Harlan II]] filed a dissenting opinion.<ref>''Alaska v. Arctic Maid'', 366 U.S. at 205 (Harlan, J., dissenting).</ref>
==See also==
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 366]]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''Alaska v. Arctic Maid'', {{ussc|366|199|1961|el=no}}
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14917072885751464391
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/199/
| loc =https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep366/usrep366199/usrep366199.pdf
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/106
}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:1961 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Legal history of Alaska]]
{{SCOTUS-case-stub}}