Connect with us

Alaska

Supreme Court refusal leaves federal subsistence priority intact in Alaska

Published

on

Supreme Court refusal leaves federal subsistence priority intact in Alaska


Alaska Native communities secured a victory in their fight to maintain federal subsistence fishing protections after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Alaska’s appeal, leaving in place a lower-court ruling that preserves decades of precedent.

 The court declined to review Alaska v. U.S., which concerned the state’s authority to issue fishing openings that would conflict with existing federal subsistence rules, according to a Native American Rights Fund news release. By declining review, the high court allowed a Ninth Circuit decision to stand. As the state continues recovering from plummeting salmon populations, a federally-enforced priority for rural — primarily Alaska Natives — communities has limited the state’s ability to open fishing to others. 

The Supreme Court’s refusal effectively ends decades of legal battles sometimes referred to as the “Katie John” cases after the Ahtna Athabascan elder who first challenged Alaska’s subsistence authority in 1985. John’s lawsuit, brought after the state denied her request to open fishing in her community, centered on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and its guarantee to prioritize rural communities relying on subsistence fishing over others. 

John’s early 1990s victories, culminating in a 1995 ruling, established a precedent that handed control over that subsistence priority to the federal government due to its reserved water rights. That precedent was then reaffirmed in later cases in 2001 and 2014.The state’s most recent appeal sought to overturn those rulings and return control to Alaska, which argued that subsistence fishing should be open to anyone, not just rural communities. 

Advertisement

“NARF filed Katie John’s first case in December 1985 and for 40 years has worked to protect the subsistence rights that sustain Alaska Native communities and cultures,” NARF Senior Staff Attorney Erin Dougherty Lynch said in a statement. “Today’s decision closes the door on decades of litigation aimed at eroding those rights.”

The conflict that led to this week’s decision began after years of declining salmon returns on the Kuskokwim River. According to court filings, managers restricted gillnet openings to rural residents during conservation periods to protect the remaining runs. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game issued overlapping emergency orders opening the same waters to all state residents, creating two sets of rules on the river at the same time.

The dispute began in 2021 when the state issued orders to open fishing that contradicted federal fisheries managers’ decision to keep it closed during a salmon shortage.

Federal agencies and tribal organizations challenged the state’s actions, arguing that the river segments in question fall within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and are therefore subject to federal subsistence management. Alaska Native groups, including the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of Village Council Presidents, sided with the federal government.

A federal district judge agreed and issued an injunction preventing the state from issuing conflicting openings. The Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling in 2025 and rejected Alaska’s broader challenge to the federal subsistence framework, according to Courthouse News Service.

Advertisement

The appellate panel’s decision relied on the earlier Katie John rulings, which recognized federal authority over certain navigable waters connected to federal lands. Because the Supreme Court declined review, that Ninth Circuit ruling — and federal subsistence priority under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act — remains in force.

About The Author

Staff Writer

Chez Oxendine (Lumbee-Cheraw) is a staff writer for Tribal Business News. Based in Oklahoma, he focuses on broadband, Indigenous entrepreneurs, and federal policy. His journalism has been featured in Native News Online, Fort Gibson Times, Muskogee Phoenix, Baconian Magazine, and Oklahoma Magazine, among others.

Advertisement

Other Articles by this author




Source link

Alaska

Alaska Supreme Court to take up case on Dan J. Sullivan, decision expected by Tuesday

Published

on

Alaska Supreme Court to take up case on Dan J. Sullivan, decision expected by Tuesday


JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.

The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.

The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.

According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.

Advertisement

This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake

Published

on

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake


An engine and firefighters from the Division of Forestry & Fire Protection’s Mat-Su Area are responding to a fire near Flat Lake.

A caller reported a fire on an island in Flat Lake, with 2 foot flame lengths and structures near by.

The engine crew responding will be shuttled by boat to the fire. The fire is currently reported as .1 acre, creeping and smoldering.

Advertisement

Additional updates will be shared as they become available.

‹ Pioneer Peak Hotshots, Gannett Glacier Crew Join Fight Against 2 Fires Near Ruby

Categories: Active Wildland Fire

Tags: #FireYear2026 #2026AKFIRESEASON, 2026 Alaska Fire Season



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s $10,000 question: Leave or stay?

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s ,000 question: Leave or stay?


A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.

Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?

It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.

Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.

Advertisement

A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.

Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.

Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.

That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.

Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.

Advertisement

This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.

Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending