Main Menu

Ahtna, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources

NATIVE LAW

Emma Giusto

In Ahtna, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 2021 Alas. LEXIS 26 (Alaska, Mar. 12, 2021), the supreme court held that (1) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1629h extinguished aboriginal title and retroactively validated the State’s right of way over Native land, and (2) the right of way under Revised Statute 2477, 42 U.S.C. § 932 (repealed 1976) was limited to egress and ingress. (Id. at *13–15). Ahtna, Inc., a regional Alaska Native corporation, owned land through which a road travels. (Id. at *2). The State cleared land along the road and removed a pay station that Ahtna, Inc. used to collect fees. (Id.). The State claimed it had obtained a 100-foot right of way under the since repealed R.S. 2477, which it argued included the use of the land for travel and recreational activities. (Id. at *2–3). Ahtna, Inc. sued, arguing the right of way did not apply and eventually sought summary judgment. (Id. at *6). The superior court granted partial summary judgment for the right of way only permitting ingress and egress, but denied Ahtna, Inc.’s claim that aboriginal title blocked the right of way. (Id.). Both parties appealed. (Id. at *7). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, reasoning that precedent supported the conclusion that ANCSA extinguished aboriginal title and retroactively validated the conveyance of a right of way for the road. (Id. at *13–14). The court further reasoned that the right of way was limited to ingress and egress and therefore did not extend to recreational activities, as the term “right of way” in R.S. 2477 and its understanding at the time the law was in effect had a limited scope. (Id. at *17–18). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) ANSCA extinguished aboriginal title and retroactively validated the State’s right of way to a road through Native land, and (2) the State exceeded the scope of its right of way under R.S. 2477 in clearing land for recreational activities, as it was limited to egress and ingress. (Id. at *13–15).

Ahtna, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources

NATIVE LAW

Emma Giusto

In Ahtna, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 2021 Alas. LEXIS 26 (Alaska, Mar. 12, 2021), the supreme court held that (1) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1629h extinguished aboriginal title and retroactively validated the State’s right of way over Native land, and (2) the right of way under Revised Statute 2477, 42 U.S.C. § 932 (repealed 1976) was limited to egress and ingress. (Id. at *13–15). Ahtna, Inc., a regional Alaska Native corporation, owned land through which a road travels. (Id. at *2). The State cleared land along the road and removed a pay station that Ahtna, Inc. used to collect fees. (Id.). The State claimed it had obtained a 100-foot right of way under the since repealed R.S. 2477, which it argued included the use of the land for travel and recreational activities. (Id. at *2–3). Ahtna, Inc. sued, arguing the right of way did not apply and eventually sought summary judgment. (Id. at *6). The superior court granted partial summary judgment for the right of way only permitting ingress and egress, but denied Ahtna, Inc.’s claim that aboriginal title blocked the right of way. (Id.). Both parties appealed. (Id. at *7). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, reasoning that precedent supported the conclusion that ANCSA extinguished aboriginal title and retroactively validated the conveyance of a right of way for the road. (Id. at *13–14). The court further reasoned that the right of way was limited to ingress and egress and therefore did not extend to recreational activities, as the term “right of way” in R.S. 2477 and its understanding at the time the law was in effect had a limited scope. (Id. at *17–18). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) ANSCA extinguished aboriginal title and retroactively validated the State’s right of way to a road through Native land, and (2) the State exceeded the scope of its right of way under R.S. 2477 in clearing land for recreational activities, as it was limited to egress and ingress. (Id. at *13–15).