Alaska
A federal judge ruled that Alaska tribes may put land into trust. Now what?
Last week, a federal judge in Anchorage ruled that tribes in Alaska may put land into trust, essentially allowing tribes to create “Indian Country” in the state. That’s something that had nearly been done away with since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act took effect 53 years ago.
Alaska Beacon reporter James Brooks sat down with KTOO’s Clarise Larson to talk about what the ruling really means, and why it matters.
Listen:
This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity.
James Brooks: This matters a lot because it allows Alaska Native tribes within the state to put land in the federal trust, protecting it from sale, from give away from anything that they don’t want — effectively. It’s a form of long-term protection that places this land under tribal law, rather than state or local law. The main idea is that putting land into trust is something that Alaska tribes haven’t been able to do since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in the 1970s.
Clarise Larson: What is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and why is it influencing what is happening today?
James Brooks: We know that Alaska Natives have lived in Alaska for 10s of 1000s of years, since time immemorial, as the phrase goes. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act back in the 1970s was designed to settle what’s known as Aboriginal land claims, the idea that folks have been living here for so long, they should have title or right to the land around them — the land that they have used.
The Settlement Act was designed to settle those Aboriginal claims to land. But what it did was it didn’t give land to tribes, instead, it created corporations to hold that land. And those corporations have rights, but they’re not sovereign governments. And in the decades since then, there have been plenty of people who are unhappy with that result. Even though corporations received millions of acres of land and millions of dollars. It didn’t answer all of the problems that Alaska Natives have had with the current system. And so by putting land into trust, you can put land under the authority of the sovereign tribal governments allowing them to exert tribal law on that land.
Clarise Larson: In Alaska, who is going to be impacted the most by this?
James Brooks: It has the potential to impact virtually everyone in the state. There are almost 230 federally recognized tribes in the state. And until now, most of those tribes have had very small land bases. Now, tribes can take a greater influence in how land is administered here. And say, for example, Tlingit and Haida’s situation here in Juneau, they’re seeking to put a fairly notable part of downtown Juneau into trust. And that has the potential to impact all of the people who live around that plot of land.
Clarise Larson: But, the ruling wasnt exactly cut and dry, right? Explain to me some of the intricacies of this particular ruling.
James Brooks: The ruling this week matters because it says that tribes can do this, but it wasn’t a complete win for the federal government or for Tlingit and Haida. Judge [Sharon] Gleason, who gave the ruling said that the process used in the particular case that was before her court was flawed and needs to be started over.
That while tribes and the federal government can do this process, the process that was used in the case under question wasn’t correct. So Tlingit and Haida is going to have to go back to the federal government, they’re going to have to restart this process. And it might take a little bit for that to happen. But in the end, the most important thing is that Tlingit and Haida, and other tribes will be able to do this process.
Clarise Larson: Why did the State of Alaska sue in the first place?
James Brooks: The state of Alaska through various governors, and various legislatures, has always been somewhat skeptical of tribal sovereignty of tribal land claims. And, in challenging tribes’ ability to put land into trust, this latest lawsuit was following in the state’s historical pattern. Because the state government, state governors feel they have a responsibility for all their state residents. And they worry that allowing tribes to put land into trust could create lots of patches of varying jurisdictions that might deprive different residents of their rights.
Clarise Larson: So, what’s next?
James Brooks: This decision could end up getting appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it could end up reaching the US Supreme Court. And we could see changes if there’s a new presidential administration as well.
Policies on Native land claims and in putting landed the trust have varied from presidential administration to presidential administration. And so we could see that change as well. While this is an important step, it’s not the last word by any means.