AstroForge, an asteroid mining startup, launched its Odin spacecraft (above) last week to fly by an asteroid it may later attempt to mine. (credit: AstroForge)

US space resources law needs clarification by Congress

by Camisha L. Simmons
Monday, March 3, 2025

On January 20, during his inaugural address, President Trump proclaimed that we (the US) “will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”[1] The proclamation was bold. The certain vision is even bolder. However, in contrast, what’s not so certain is the law that will enable robust commercial activity and eventual human settlement in outer space.

Space is now commercialized. The rapidly evolving, robust, and growing global space economy is expected to be worth approximately $1.8 trillion by 2035.”[2]

One driver of increased commercial activity in the space sector, including the rise of companies whose goal is to mine mineral rich asteroids, is a 2015 US law governing commercial recovery of space resources. In November 2015, the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (the “2015 Space Act” or “Act”) was signed into law in the US.[3] The 2015 Space Act grants US citizens engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or other space resource the right to “possess, own, transport, use, and sell” any asteroid resource or other space resource they obtain.[4]

Though the 2015 Space Act appears clear on its face and is supported by a Presidential Executive Order,[5] the law, as written, has led to varying interpretations. This article highlights and discusses how the current law on ownership rights regarding space resources doesn’t provide the necessary clarity regarding the ability to own certain space resources and offers suggestions on how Congress can clarify the law.

The Outer Space Treaty: Sovereign appropriation of outer space is not allowed

Current law allows private parties to own certain resources in outer space, but governmental entities are prohibited from appropriating and exercising sovereignty over outer space.

By becoming a party to the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”), the US agreed that it and all other State Parties bound by the treaty may not engage in national appropriation of outer space “by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”[6]

Further, to promote international corporation instead of conflict regarding activities in space, on October 13, 2020, the US launched the Artemis Accords, a non-binding set of principles designed to facilitate civil space exploration.[7] To ensure lawful extraction and utilization of space resources, Section 10 of the Artemis Accords provides “that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, and that contracts and other legal instruments relating to space resources should be consistent with that Treaty.”[8] The term space resources is left undefined in the Artemis Accords, but is defined under the US law granting private parties the right to own space resources.

The 2015 Space Act: Private non-governmental ownership of space resources is authorized

The Outer Space Treaty does not specifically preclude private individuals and entities from owning[9] outer space and its resources. Thus, for that reason and others, proponents take the position that Congress’s enactment of the 2015 Space Act, which allows private individuals and entities to own space resources, did not violate international law. Further supporting the law allowing private ownership of resources in space is Article 17 of the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that “(1) [e]veryone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” and “(2) [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”[10]

The 2015 Space Act grants private US citizens (individuals and non-governmental entities), and not the US government itself, the right to “possess, own, transport, use, and sell” an asteroid resource or other space resource that US citizens obtain when engaging in commercial recovery of space resources.[11]

Under the Act, an asteroid resource is defined as “a space resource found on or within a single asteroid.”[12] The Act defines a “space resource” as “an abiotic resource in situ in outer space.”[13] Abiotic is anything that is non-living.[14] Therefore, land, a non-living resource, falls within the definition of space resource under the 2015 Space Act. Water and minerals are specifically listed as space resources in the Act.[15]

The 2015 Space Act lacks clarity regarding what can be owned

The 2015 Space Act provides, in pertinent part, that

A United States citizen[16] engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States.[17] [emphasis added]

Pursuant to the terms of the Act, a US citizen must be engaged in “commercial recovery” of a space resource and “obtain” it in order to have an ownership interest in the space resource. Yet, the term “commercial recovery” is not defined in the Act.[18] Because it is not defined, parties are left to their own differing interpretations regarding what activity is a “commercial recovery” activity that gives rise to a claim to own a space resource pursuant to the terms of the Act. Does “commercial recovery” only mean extraction of a space resource? Therefore, a party can only own what they extract? Or does “commercial recovery” also include acquisition and development of space resources like land that are left in place and not extracted? Is real estate acquisition and development in outer space a “commercial recovery” activity within the meaning of the 2015 Space Act that enables US citizens to own land in outer space that they acquire and develop? The law as it is currently written fails to answer these questions.

The absence of a definition of what it means to engage in “commercial recovery” of a space resource is notable given that Congress has included a definition for the term “commercial recovery” in other law. Congress included a definition for “commercial recovery” under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act,[19] which is the law that governs mining for hard mineral resources of the deep seabed underlying the high seas that are beyond the geographical bounds and limits of national jurisdiction.

Further, the 2015 Space Act stipulates that US citizens can “possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained.” “Obtained” is likewise not defined. What does it mean to “obtain” a space resource within the meaning of the Act? Parties engaged in commercial activities related to space resources likewise may have differing interpretations of what it means to “obtain” a space resource for the purposes of possession, ownership, transport, use, and disposal by sale or other means.

How courts will approach proper interpretation of the 2015 Space Act

If a dispute should arise regarding the proper interpretation of the language and terms of the 2015 Space Act, the court that decides the issue must “fulfill or carry out the intent of Congress.”[20] To ascertain what Congress intended, the court will look to the plain language of the law.[21] If, and only if, the language of the law is deemed ambiguous by the court, will the court look to the legislative history and other sources outside the plain language of the law to ascertain what Congress intended the terms in the law to mean?[22] In determining what a term in a law means, the terms are construed in accordance with their common, plain, and ordinary meaning.[23] And, “the Court may ‘rely upon its own understanding, dictionaries and other reliable sources.’”[24]

Proposed resolution: Clarification by Congress

Instead of waiting for a dispute to arise that will require a court to interpret the language of the 2015 Space Act, Congress can clarify the issue beforehand by amending the law. At a minimum, Congress should add a definition for the term “commercial recovery.” If Congress intends that parties may only own the space resources they extract and cannot own land in situ, then Congress should explicitly state so. Though, given that many believe that property ownership is a human right that should naturally extend to off-Earth activities, Congress may get push back from those advocating for private ownership of space resources, including the land in place. Accordingly, Congress may include real estate acquisition and development as a “commercial recovery” activity covered by the Act.

Further, to add greater clarity to the law, Congress should define what it means to have “obtained” a space resource during commercial recovery activities. Until Congress clarifies these terms, the law will lend itself to divergent interpretations. Some actors in space, however, may prefer the lack of clarity, as it gives them a gray area to capitalize on. They would rather ask for forgiveness for their actions that are based on an improper interpretation of the law due to the law’s murkiness, than seek Congress’s permission (clarity) before they act.

Endnotes

1. See President Trump’s Inaugural Address, at 24:03-24:12.
2. Mckinsey & Company, Space: The $1.8 trillion opportunity for global economic growth, Apr. 8, 2024. (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).
3. See 51 U.S.C. §§ 51301-51303.
4. See id. Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Japan and India have similarly followed the U.S. in enacting law and/or establishing policy regarding ownership of space resources. See Law of July 20th 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources, Luxembourg Space Agency; On the Regulation of the Space Sector, ch. 3, art. 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 International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources (Apr. 6, 2020), (rejecting the notion that outer space and outer space resources are a global commons).
6. See Outer Space Treaty, Art. 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. Section 10.
9. Under U.S. law, to “own” refers to possessing certain legal rights with respect to the subject property. “Ownership of property is often described as a bundle of rights.” See, e.g., Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 2005). “[O]wnership of property involves certain ‘sticks’ (or ‘strands’) of legal rights’—e.g., the right to possess, the right to use and develop, the right to exclude, the right to convey, and the right to profit from property—and thus “the aggregate of all of the sticks constitutes the full ‘bundle’ of rights.” See, e.g., Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 28 F.4th 700, 730 (6th Cir. 2022) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 626 (2023). “Within the bundle of rights commonly characterized as ownership of property also lies the right to transfer ownership. That stick in the bundle is no less essential than the right to exclude others.” 3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 610 (7th 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 “relating to things in the environment that are not living”). See also Oxford Dictionary, (defining term to mean “not involving biology or living things”).
15. See 51 U.S.C. §51301(2)(B).
16. Pursuant to 51 U.S.C. § 50902(1) a “citizen of the United States” means— (A) an individual who is a citizen of the United States; (B) an entity organized or existing under the laws of the United States or a State; or C) an entity organized or existing under the laws of a foreign country if the controlling interest (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) is held by an individual 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. Trade 2000), aff'd, 334 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation 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.2d 1174, 1179 (CIT 1999) (quoting Medline Indus., Inc. v. U.S., 62 F.3d 1407, 1409 (Fed.Cir.1995)).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Camisha L. Simmons is a business attorney based in Dallas, Texas. She is a frequent writer and speaker on cutting-edge legal topics that impact businesses. She is licensed to practice law in both Texas and New York. This article represents the views of the author, and such views should not necessarily be imputed to Simmons Legal PLLC, its affiliates and clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.

Home