ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Adam Yaggy
In Cassell v. State, 567 P.3d 1273 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that a regulation treating Alaska residents differently than nonresidents for the purpose of hunting Kodiak brown bears did not violate the Alaska state constitution. (Id. at 1275). A hunting regulation places allocation requirements on permits to hunt Kodiak brown bears. (Id.). Sixty percent must be allocated to Alaska residents, while no more than forty percent may be allocated to nonresidents. (Id.). Further, nonresidents may only hunt in most situations if they hire a professional guide, a requirement not present for Alaska residents. (Id.). In this case, an Alaska hunter argued that the regulation gives a special privilege to nonresidents, notwithstanding the fact that nonresidents may receive a lesser percentage of allocated permits and must hire professional guides. (Id.). The hunter argued that the supposed special privilege for nonresidents violated the principle in Alaska’s state constitution of equal access to fish and game. (Id.). The Supreme Court rejected the Alaska hunter’s argument, stating that the regulation gave no special privilege to nonresidents. (Id.). Further, the hunter argued that the regulation that limited the allocation of permits to Alaska residents fell short of the duty to maximize benefits for the Alaskan people. (Id. at 1283). The Supreme Court also rejected this argument, stating that the government may consider competing uses for wildlife when making allocation decisions. (Id. at 1283–84). Affirming the lower court’s judgment, the Supreme Court held that a regulation covering permits to hunt Kodiak brown bears did not violate the Alaska constitution. (Id. at 1275).
