US space resources law needs clarification by Congress

AstroForge, an asteroid mining startup, launched its Odin spacecraft (above) final week to fly by an asteroid it could later try to mine. (credit score: AstroForge)

by Camisha L. Simmons
Monday, March 3, 2025

On January 20, throughout his inaugural tackle, President Trump proclaimed that we (the US) “will pursue our manifest future into the celebs, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”[1] The proclamation was daring. The sure imaginative and prescient is even bolder. Nevertheless, in distinction, what’s not so sure is the legislation that may allow sturdy business exercise and eventual human settlement in outer area.

Area is now commercialized. The quickly evolving, sturdy, and rising international area financial system is predicted to be price roughly $1.8 trillion by 2035.”[2]

One driver of elevated business exercise within the area sector, together with the rise of corporations whose purpose is to mine mineral wealthy asteroids, is a 2015 US legislation governing business restoration of area assets. In November 2015, the US Business Area Launch Competitiveness Act (the “2015 Area Act” or “Act”) was signed into legislation within the US.[3] The 2015 Area Act grants US residents engaged in business restoration of an asteroid useful resource or different area useful resource the proper to “possess, personal, transport, use, and promote” any asteroid useful resource or different area useful resource they acquire.[4]

Although the 2015 Area Act seems clear on its face and is supported by a Presidential Govt Order,[5] the legislation, as written, has led to various interpretations. This text highlights and discusses how the present legislation on possession rights relating to area assets doesn’t present the required readability relating to the power to personal sure area assets and gives options on how Congress can make clear the legislation.

The Outer Area Treaty: Sovereign appropriation of outer area isn’t allowed

Present legislation permits non-public events to personal sure assets in outer area, however governmental entities are prohibited from appropriating and exercising sovereignty over outer area.

By turning into a celebration to the 1967 Treaty on Ideas Governing the Actions of States within the Exploration and Use of Outer Area, Together with the Moon and Different Celestial Our bodies (the “Outer Area Treaty”), the US agreed that it and all different State Events certain by the treaty could not interact in nationwide appropriation of outer area “by declare of sovereignty, via use or occupation, or by some other means.”[6]

Additional, to advertise worldwide company as an alternative of battle relating to actions in area, on October 13, 2020, the US launched the Artemis Accords, a non-binding set of ideas designed to facilitate civil area exploration.[7] To make sure lawful extraction and utilization of area assets, Part 10 of the Artemis Accords offers “that the extraction of area assets doesn’t inherently represent nationwide appropriation beneath Article II of the Outer Area Treaty, and that contracts and different authorized devices regarding area assets must be in line with that Treaty.”[8] The time period area assets is left undefined within the Artemis Accords, however is outlined beneath the US legislation granting non-public events the proper to personal area assets.

The 2015 Area Act: Personal non-governmental possession of area assets is permitted

The Outer Area Treaty doesn’t particularly preclude non-public people and entities from proudly owning[9] outer area and its assets. Thus, for that motive and others, proponents take the place that Congress’s enactment of the 2015 Area Act, which permits non-public people and entities to personal area assets, didn’t violate worldwide legislation. Additional supporting the legislation permitting non-public possession of assets in area is Article 17 of the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, which offers that “(1) [e]veryone has the proper to personal property alone in addition to in affiliation with others” and “(2) [n]o one shall be arbitrarily disadvantaged of his property.”[10]

The 2015 Area Act grants non-public US residents (people and non-governmental entities), and never the US authorities itself, the proper to “possess, personal, transport, use, and promote” an asteroid useful resource or different area useful resource that US residents acquire when participating in business restoration of area assets.[11]

Beneath the Act, an asteroid useful resource is outlined as “an area useful resource discovered on or inside a single asteroid.”[12] The Act defines a “area useful resource” as “an abiotic useful resource in situ in outer area.”[13] Abiotic is something that’s non-living.[14] Due to this fact, land, a non-living useful resource, falls inside the definition of area useful resource beneath the 2015 Area Act. Water and minerals are particularly listed as area assets within the Act.[15]

The 2015 Area Act lacks readability relating to what might be owned

The 2015 Area Act offers, in pertinent half, that

A United States citizen[16] engaged in business restoration of an asteroid useful resource or an area useful resource beneath this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid useful resource or area useful resource obtained, together with to own, personal, transport, use, and promote the asteroid useful resource or area useful resource obtained in accordance with relevant legislation, together with the worldwide obligations of the USA.[17] [emphasis added]

Pursuant to the phrases of the Act, a US citizen should be engaged in “business restoration” of an area useful resource and “acquire” it to be able to have an possession curiosity within the area useful resource. But, the time period “business restoration” isn’t outlined within the Act.[18] As a result of it’s not outlined, events are left to their very own differing interpretations relating to what exercise is a “business restoration” exercise that provides rise to a declare to personal an area useful resource pursuant to the phrases of the Act. Does “business restoration” solely imply extraction of an area useful resource? Due to this fact, a celebration can solely personal what they extract? Or does “business restoration” additionally embody acquisition and improvement of area assets like land which might be left in place and never extracted? Is actual property acquisition and improvement in outer area a “business restoration” exercise inside the that means of the 2015 Area Act that permits US residents to personal land in outer area that they purchase and develop? The legislation as it’s presently written fails to reply these questions.

The absence of a definition of what it means to have interaction in “business restoration” of an area useful resource is notable provided that Congress has included a definition for the time period “business restoration” in different legislation. Congress included a definition for “business restoration” beneath the Deep Seabed Onerous Mineral Sources Act,[19] which is the legislation that governs mining for arduous mineral assets of the deep seabed underlying the excessive seas which might be past the geographical bounds and limits of nationwide jurisdiction.

Additional, the 2015 Area Act stipulates that US residents can “possess, personal, transport, use, and promote the asteroid useful resource or area useful resource obtained.” “Obtained” is likewise not outlined. What does it imply to “acquire” an area useful resource inside the that means of the Act? Events engaged in business actions associated to area assets likewise could have differing interpretations of what it means to “acquire” an area useful resource for the needs of possession, possession, transport, use, and disposal by sale or different means.

How courts will strategy correct interpretation of the 2015 Area Act

If a dispute ought to come up relating to the correct interpretation of the language and phrases of the 2015 Area Act, the court docket that decides the problem should “fulfill or perform the intent of Congress.”[20] To establish what Congress supposed, the court docket will look to the plain language of the legislation.[21] If, and provided that, the language of the legislation is deemed ambiguous by the court docket, will the court docket look to the legislative historical past and different sources outdoors the plain language of the legislation to determine what Congress supposed the phrases within the legislation to imply?[22] In figuring out what a time period in a legislation means, the phrases are construed in accordance with their widespread, plain, and odd that means.[23] And, “the Courtroom could ‘depend upon its personal understanding, dictionaries and different dependable sources.’”[24]

Proposed decision: Clarification by Congress

As a substitute of ready for a dispute to come up that may require a court docket to interpret the language of the 2015 Area Act, Congress can make clear the problem beforehand by amending the legislation. At a minimal, Congress ought to add a definition for the time period “business restoration.” If Congress intends that events could solely personal the area assets they extract and can’t personal land in situ, then Congress ought to explicitly state so. Although, provided that many consider that property possession is a human proper that ought to naturally prolong to off-Earth actions, Congress could get push again from these advocating for personal possession of area assets, together with the land in place. Accordingly, Congress could embody actual property acquisition and improvement as a “business restoration” exercise lined by the Act.

Additional, so as to add better readability to the legislation, Congress ought to outline what it means to have “obtained” an area useful resource throughout business restoration actions. Till Congress clarifies these phrases, the legislation will lend itself to divergent interpretations. Some actors in area, nonetheless, could desire the dearth of readability, because it provides them a grey space to capitalize on. They’d moderately express regret for his or her actions which might be primarily based on an improper interpretation of the legislation because of the legislation’s murkiness, than search Congress’s permission (readability) earlier than they act.

Endnotes

1. See President Trump’s Inaugural Address, at 24:03-24:12.
2. Mckinsey & Firm, Space: The $1.8 trillion opportunity for global economic growth, Apr. 8, 2024. (final visited Feb. 27, 2025).
3. See 51 U.S.C. §§ 51301-51303.
4. See id. Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Japan and India have equally adopted the U.S. in enacting legislation and/or establishing coverage relating to possession of area assets. See Law of July 20th 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources, Luxembourg Space Agency; On the Regulation of the Area Sector, ch. 3, artwork. 18 (Fed. L. No. 12), Dec. 12, 2019 (U.A.E.): Space Resources Act Enacted, U.S. Library of Cong.; Indian Space Policy – 2023.
5. See Executive Order 13914 of April 6, 2020, Encouraging Worldwide Assist for the Restoration and Use of Area Sources (Apr. 6, 2020), (rejecting the notion that outer area and outer area assets are a world commons).
6. See Outer Space Treaty, Artwork. II.
7. See The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes.
8. See id. Part 10.
9. Beneath U.S. legislation, to “personal” refers to possessing sure authorized rights with respect to the topic property. “Possession of property is commonly described as a bundle of rights.” See, e.g., Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 122 (second Cir. 2005). “[O]wnership of property entails sure ‘sticks’ (or ‘strands’) of authorized rights’—e.g., the proper to own, the proper to make use of and develop, the proper to exclude, the proper to convey, and the proper to revenue from property—and thus “the combination of the entire sticks constitutes the total ‘bundle’ of rights.” See, e.g., Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Commr. of Inside Income, 28 F.4th 700, 730 (sixth Cir. 2022) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 626 (2023). “Inside the bundle of rights generally characterised as possession of property additionally lies the proper to switch possession. That stick within the bundle isn’t any much less important than the proper to exclude others.” 3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 610 (seventh Cir. 2001).
10. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
11. See id. § 51303.
12. See id. §51301(1).
13. See id. §51301(2)(A).
14. See, e.g., Cambridge Dictionary (defining “abiotic” as “regarding issues within the setting that aren’t dwelling”). See additionally Oxford Dictionary, (defining time period to imply “not involving biology or dwelling issues”).
15. See 51 U.S.C. §51301(2)(B).
16. Pursuant to 51 U.S.C. § 50902(1) a “citizen of the USA” means— (A) a person who’s a citizen of the USA; (B) an entity organized or current beneath the legal guidelines of the USA or a State; or C) an entity organized or current beneath the legal guidelines of a international nation if the controlling curiosity (as outlined by the Secretary of Transportation) is held by a person or entity described in subclause (A) or (B) of this clause.
17. See id. § 51303 (emphasis added).
18. See id.
19. 30 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1473.
20. See, e.g., Len-Ron Mfg. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 24 C.I.T. 948, 961 (Ct. Intl. Commerce 2000), aff’d, 334 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (inner quotation and citation marks omitted).
21. See id.
22. See id.
23. See id.
24. See id. (quoting North Am. Processing Co. v. U.S., 56 F.Supp.second 1174, 1179 (CIT 1999) (quoting Medline Indus., Inc. v. U.S., 62 F.3d 1407, 1409 (Fed.Cir.1995)).

This text is republished from The Conversation beneath a Artistic Commons license. Learn the original article.

Camisha L. Simmons is a enterprise lawyer primarily based in Dallas, Texas. She is a frequent author and speaker on cutting-edge authorized matters that affect companies. She is licensed to observe legislation in each Texas and New York. This text represents the views of the creator, and such views shouldn’t essentially be imputed to Simmons Authorized PLLC, its associates and shoppers. This text is for basic data functions and isn’t supposed to be and shouldn’t be taken as authorized recommendation.

Word: we at the moment are moderating feedback. There can be a delay in posting feedback and no assure that each one submitted feedback can be posted.