The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled in favor of treasure hunting company Nautilus Productions and Frederick Allen in their lawsuit against North Carolina Governor Joshua Stein and numerous officials from the state's Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. The published opinion, filed Jan. 23, 2026, represents a significant victory for private treasure hunters in their ongoing legal battle with state archaeological authorities.
The case, *Frederick L. Allen v. Joshua H. Stein* (4th Cir. 2026), involved multiple high-ranking North Carolina officials, including former Secretary Susan Wear Kluttz, Chief Deputy Secretary Margrette Kathryn Thompson, and State Archaeologist James Christopher Southerly. The defendants also included Stephen Atkinson, Deputy State Archaeologist for Underwater Archaeology and Director of the Underwater Archaeology Branch, indicating the dispute centered on underwater cultural resources.
Allen and Nautilus Productions challenged actions by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, which oversees the state's archaeological and cultural heritage preservation efforts. The department's Underwater Archaeology Branch plays a crucial role in protecting North Carolina's extensive maritime heritage, including numerous shipwrecks off the state's coast.
The case also involved Friends of Queen Anne's Revenge, a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation of the famous pirate ship associated with Blackbeard. Queen Anne's Revenge was discovered off the North Carolina coast in 1996 and has been the subject of ongoing archaeological excavation and preservation efforts by state authorities.
North Carolina's waters contain hundreds of documented shipwrecks, making underwater archaeology a significant concern for state officials. The Department of Natural and Cultural Resources has historically taken an active role in protecting these sites from commercial treasure hunting operations, which can damage or destroy valuable archaeological evidence.
The Fourth Circuit's published opinion suggests the court found merit in the plaintiffs' arguments against the state's actions. Published opinions carry precedential weight and indicate the court views the case as having broader legal significance beyond the immediate parties involved.
Treasure hunting operations often clash with state archaeological authorities over access to underwater sites. While treasure hunters seek to recover valuable artifacts for commercial purposes, archaeologists emphasize the scientific and historical value of preserving shipwreck sites in their original context.
The legal framework governing underwater archaeology involves complex interactions between federal and state law. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 generally grants states ownership of abandoned shipwrecks in their waters, but disputes often arise over the interpretation and application of these provisions.
North Carolina has been particularly active in asserting state control over underwater cultural resources. The state's Underwater Archaeology Branch, led by officials named as defendants in this case, has conducted extensive research and preservation work on numerous shipwreck sites.
The involvement of multiple high-ranking state officials as defendants suggests the case challenged fundamental aspects of North Carolina's underwater archaeology program. The defendants included not only Department of Natural and Cultural Resources officials but also Attorney General Jeffrey Neale Jackson, indicating the state viewed the case as having significant legal implications.
The case's resolution in favor of Allen and Nautilus Productions could have broader implications for treasure hunting operations and state archaeological programs throughout the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. All of these states have significant underwater cultural resources and active archaeological programs.
The Fourth Circuit's decision may influence how other courts interpret the balance between private commercial interests and state archaeological preservation efforts. Treasure hunting companies operating in the region will likely view the decision as supporting their rights to access underwater sites.
State archaeological programs may need to reassess their approaches to regulating commercial treasure hunting activities in light of the court's ruling. The decision could affect how states interpret their authority under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act and related federal and state laws.
The case underscores ongoing tensions between commercial treasure hunting operations and scientific archaeological research. These disputes often involve questions of property rights, scientific methodology, and cultural heritage preservation that courts must balance carefully.
Looking ahead, the ruling may prompt legislative or regulatory responses from North Carolina and other states seeking to maintain effective oversight of underwater cultural resources. State officials may also consider appeals or other legal strategies to preserve their archaeological programs.
The involvement of Friends of Queen Anne's Revenge highlights the role of non-profit organizations in supporting state archaeological efforts. These groups often provide crucial financial and logistical support for preservation projects that might otherwise lack adequate resources.
The Fourth Circuit's published opinion in this case will likely be closely studied by legal practitioners specializing in archaeological law, cultural heritage protection, and maritime law. The decision may also influence ongoing policy debates about the appropriate balance between commercial and scientific interests in underwater archaeology.