NATIVE LAW
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025)
Adam Yaggy
In United States v. Alaska, 151 F.4th 1124 (9th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “public lands” under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) includes navigable waters where subsistence fishing traditionally has taken place. (Id. at 1127). In this case, the United States sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Alaska from interfering with federal efforts to implement the rural subsistence priority. (Id. at 1135–36). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, and Alaska appealed. (Id. at 1136). The Katie John Trilogy interpreted “public lands” to include water rights where the United States holds water rights. (Id. at 1127). In contrast, Sturgeon II interpreted “public lands” differently in another ANILCA section based on subsistence-fishing context that was not at present in the Katie John Trilogy. (Id. at 1127–28). When Alaska argued that the Katie John Trilogy and Sturgeon II are clearly irreconcilable, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument. The Court stated that the contextual differences between the two sections rebuts the presumption of consistent usage for “public lands” and analyzed legislative history to ground its opinion. (Id. at 1128, 1141–42). Affirming the lower court’s judgment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal government has the authority to implement the rural subsistence priority on navigable waters within federal conservation units in Alaska. (Id. at 1143–44).
