Main Menu

Department of Fish and Game v. Cook Inletkeeper

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Teddy Brodsky

In Department of Fish and Game v. Cook Inletkeeper, 576 P.3d 654 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game had the authority to repeal a regulation through the rulemaking process. (Id. at 659). Alaska’s Board of Fisheries, Board of Game, and Department of Fish and Game implement restrictions on how Critical Habitat Areas (CHAs) may be used. (Id.). The Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game adopted a regulation banning jet skis in two CHAs before repealing the ban through the rulemaking process years later. (Id.). Conservation groups challenged the repeal, arguing it was inconsistent with the governing statutes and unsupported by scientific evidence. (Id.). The superior court granted summary judgment for the conservation groups and reinstated the jet ski ban, arguing that the Commissioner did not have the authority to repeal the ban and the repeal conflicted with the purpose of the CHA statutes. (Id. at 661). The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Commissioner had the authority to enact and repeal the jet ski ban. (Id. at 663). The Court looked at the Commissioner’s implied statutory authority to approve uses within the CHAs and found that the authority to promulgate rules implied the authority to repeal them. (Id.). And while the Boards of Fishers and Game have the statutory authority to determine which uses of CHAs are compatible with protecting critical habitats, the Court found that they had delegated this authority to the Commissioner. (Id. at 666). Furthermore, the Court noted that the repeal was not inconsistent with the CHA statute because the statute contemplated allowing certain uses that may adversely affect the habitat. (Id. at 667). Lastly, the repeal of the ban was reasonable in that the Commissioner adequately studied the scientific evidence, considered the opinions of experts, did not predetermine the outcome, and acted consistently with existing regulations and policy. (Id. at 671–74). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game possesses broad authority to enact and repeal regulations through the rulemaking process. (Id. at 663).

Department of Fish and Game v. Cook Inletkeeper

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Teddy Brodsky

In Department of Fish and Game v. Cook Inletkeeper, 576 P.3d 654 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game had the authority to repeal a regulation through the rulemaking process. (Id. at 659). Alaska’s Board of Fisheries, Board of Game, and Department of Fish and Game implement restrictions on how Critical Habitat Areas (CHAs) may be used. (Id.). The Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game adopted a regulation banning jet skis in two CHAs before repealing the ban through the rulemaking process years later. (Id.). Conservation groups challenged the repeal, arguing it was inconsistent with the governing statutes and unsupported by scientific evidence. (Id.). The superior court granted summary judgment for the conservation groups and reinstated the jet ski ban, arguing that the Commissioner did not have the authority to repeal the ban and the repeal conflicted with the purpose of the CHA statutes. (Id. at 661). The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Commissioner had the authority to enact and repeal the jet ski ban. (Id. at 663). The Court looked at the Commissioner’s implied statutory authority to approve uses within the CHAs and found that the authority to promulgate rules implied the authority to repeal them. (Id.). And while the Boards of Fishers and Game have the statutory authority to determine which uses of CHAs are compatible with protecting critical habitats, the Court found that they had delegated this authority to the Commissioner. (Id. at 666). Furthermore, the Court noted that the repeal was not inconsistent with the CHA statute because the statute contemplated allowing certain uses that may adversely affect the habitat. (Id. at 667). Lastly, the repeal of the ban was reasonable in that the Commissioner adequately studied the scientific evidence, considered the opinions of experts, did not predetermine the outcome, and acted consistently with existing regulations and policy. (Id. at 671–74). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game possesses broad authority to enact and repeal regulations through the rulemaking process. (Id. at 663).