The US Supreme Court is again being asked to step into Alaska’s long-running subsistence dispute, a case that has grown beyond fish and rivers into a broader fight over who controls Alaska’s resources, and whether rural Alaskans are treated equally under the law.
The federal government, the Association of Village Council Presidents, and multiple tribal groups have filed briefs urging the high court to reject the State of Alaska’s petition that challenges a decades-old subsistence fishing system that prioritizes rural residents under federal law.
The State of Alaska argues the current regime of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act undermines state authority, creates unequal treatment among Alaskans, and extends federal power beyond what Congress intended.
At the heart of the dispute is the ANILCA rule that requires a rural preference for subsistence uses, but only on federal public lands. Over the past three decades, federal agencies have interpreted that authority to include navigable waters, creating a dual regulatory system that fractures fisheries management and erodes equal access for rural residents who do not fall under federal definitions.
That tension came to a head on the Kuskokwim River in 2021, when federal managers issued emergency orders closing fishing except for rural subsistence users, while the state kept subsistence fishing open to all eligible Alaskans.
The Biden Administration later sought and won an injunction blocking the state’s authority. Lower courts have since sided with the federal government and tribal groups, most recently when the Ninth Circuit upheld federal control in August 2025.
Fast forward to 2026: The Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear the case.
In its petition, the State of Alaska argues that ANILCA’s reference to “public lands” does not include navigable waters, a distinction the state says is essential to preserving Alaska’s constitutional mandate to manage fish and wildlife for the benefit of all.
“Getting this right is critical for Alaska,” the state argued. “Federal mismanagement of Alaska’s fisheries was a key driver of Statehood nearly 70 years ago. To preserve these resources, Alaska must comprehensively regulate its waters. But, the decision below deprives Alaska of this control, perpetuates a broken regulatory regime, and disregards the text that Congress enacted.”
Tribal organizations, including AVCP, the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission, Ahtna Tene Nené, Ahtna, Inc., and the Alaska Federation of Natives, filed a joint brief opposing the Supreme Court review.
The US Department of Justice has also urged the court to deny review and arguing that prior Supreme Court rulings, including the famous Sturgeon v. Frost, do not undermine the long-standing Katie John precedent that allows federal regulation of subsistence fishing on navigable waters. Katie John was a decision made during the administration of Gov. Tony Knowles, and he never challenged it.
“Alaska now raises the same question it has twice before asked this Court to resolve,” the Justice Department wrote. “The Court should once again deny review.”
But the case is no longer just about subsistence. It’s about fairness. Alaska’s Constitution explicitly prohibits exclusive rights to fish and wildlife, a provision being hollowed out by federal interpretations that favor certain rural users over others, including the sidelining of non-Native families who have lived off the land for generations.
They also point to the growing complexity and confusion created by overlapping state and federal rules, which often change mid-season and vary by river segment, leaving rural residents, whether Native or non-Native, struggling to understand which government is in charge – state or federal.
The Ninth Circuit’s reliance on the 1995 Katie John v. Norton decision is central to the state’s appeal. Alaska argues that ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, particularly Sturgeon, which held that navigable waters are not “public lands” for certain federal regulatory purposes.
While federal agencies insist the cases are distinct, Alaska contends the contradiction has real-world consequences, stripping the state of authority over its own waters and locking rural communities into a system that treats similarly situated Alaskans differently depending on which map or agency applies.
Briefs in the case are scheduled for conference on Jan. 9, according to the Supreme Court’s docket.
2 thoughts on “Supreme Court asked to weigh subsistence system that favors some rural Alaskans over others”
I have lived on the YK Delta since 1987. Previous to that I was living in the Copper River valley, home to Katie John. I was living in Copper Center when the second most incompetent President in our history, Jimmy Carter, used Executive Order too steal Alaskans’ rights by locking up huge swaths of properties by turning them into National Parks, Wildlife Refuges and Preserves. The Feds have bullied and bludgeoned the State through law enforcement, court or worst of all ,Congressional oversight from incompetent thieving buffoons ever since Carter put his pen to paper.
I have watched the battles over game management, fish management and commercial use on Federal property since the ’70’s. I have noticed only one constant coming from the opposing proposed management regulations, the Federal Government wants to lock everyone off of “their” properties whenever and however they can.
What you’ll see in the second paragraph of Suzanne’s article is the Feds fully funded bullying and bludgeoning groups, Tribes and AVCP. The groups that dance to any Federal tune for dollars.
Tribes don’t have funds of their own. Their funds are dependency dollars from the Feds.
AVCP doesn’t even have the standing of a Government. They are a 501 organization who’s only authorized mission is to administer grants for Tribes requesting help for specific grants. They are not a voice of the people. They’re not a qualified group too go to Court with standing. Whether or not any Alaskan fills their freezer from the land using subsistence, be it State or Federal moose or fish, has absolutely nothing to do with managing grants or programs for the Federal Government. What AVCP is doing is dancing for dollars and using Federally designated grant dollars to misrepresent the fiduciary duty owed to the American Taxpayers, by falsely misrepresenting themselves as a voice for all the YK Delta in this lawsuit. AVCP is “nothing more than a contract employee to handle grants, which saves money through hiring duplications, by centralizing in Bethel” according to Senator Ted Stevens when I talked with him over my concerns of AVCP overstepping their authority authority years ago,over the 40 horse power rule on the Holitna River.
I guarantee AVCP has no authority to speak for me, my family or my friends that want States Rights fully given back to we the citizens of Alaska. What I want is for a Judge to slap AVCP up along side of the head and tell them to stay in their lane managing grants or face a Federal Audit to figure out which Village grants were shorted to finance AVCPs trips and legal fees supporting this lawsuit.
This could have been settled during the administration of Gov. Tony Knowles. But he opted to drop the Katie John decision appeal with prejudice. Knowles, one of the worst governors of Alaska and Jimmy Carter…..what a pair.