The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition from the state of Alaska seeking to limit federal authority over regulating subsistence fishing on federal lands in the state.
The Supreme Court’s decision to not take up the case leaves a prior ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which rejected Alaska’s arguments and kept the federal government’s regulatory authority intact – in place.
Alaska was seeking to overturn parts of the federal Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The law requires preferential treatment for rural Alaskans engaging in subsistence fishing on federal lands in Alaska, but it does not apply to subsistence fishing that takes place on state land. The law has led to a de facto two-tiered system, in which rural residents are given preferential treatment when it comes to subsistence fishing on federal lands but not on state lands.
The difference came to a head in 2021, when the federal government closed fishing on the Kuskokwim River to everyone except rural subsistence fishers. The state government issued a contradicting order opening up subsistence fishing to all eligible Alaskans.
In 2023, the state of Alaska decided to sue the federal government, hoping the courts would take its side in rejecting the latter’s authority. Groups representing Alaska-based Tribes – including the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of Village Council Presidents – joined the federal government in defending ANILCA in court. The courts have unanimously sided with the federal government, rejecting Alaska’s attempts to gain control of the subsistence fishing system. In 2024, a district court ruled in favor of the federal government, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in August 2025.
In September, the state appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to rule on the meaning of the term “public lands” in ANILCA. Alaska argued that the term refers only to land – not navigable waters where subsistence fishing takes place. Such a definition would overturn prior Supreme Court precedent laid out in a series of decisions known as the Katie John cases, which held that navigable waters were "public lands." However, the state argued that definition contradicted other Supreme Court rulings.
“Getting this right is critical for Alaska. Federal mismanagement of Alaska’s fisheries was a key driver of statehood nearly 70 years ago,” the state argued in its petition. “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.”
The state was opposed before the court by the U.S. Department of Justice and Tribal groups, which both filed briefs asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case.
“Subsistence is not just a legal right; it is Our Way of Life. Katie John has protected our community for many years. So far, every court has affirmed what we know to be true: that our subsistence rights are our legal rights,” AVCP CEO Vivian Korthuis said after the group filed its brief. “The State of Alaska’s latest challenge at the Supreme Court level is a distraction from supporting our rights and traditions. We urge the United States Supreme Court to uphold these rights and reject any attempt by the State of Alaska to undermine them. AVCP continues to stand united with our allies to defend and protect Our Way of Life.”
Now, the Supreme Court has denied Alaska’s petition. In a 12 January order, the court announced that it would not be taking up the case, letting the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling stand.
