The Native American Rights Fund has provided legal assistance to Tribes in Alaska since NARF’s founding in the early 1970s. In 1984, NARF opened an Alaska office so it could better serve Alaska Native Tribes and individuals. In the 40 years since NARF Alaska opened its doors, the office has litigated some of the most influential cases in the development of federal Indian law in Alaska. Below is an overview of the foundational work that NARF has done with and on behalf of Alaska Native Tribal governments and people.
Alaska
Alaska Federal Court Rejects Effort to Attack Alaska Tribal Nations’ Federal Acknowledgment + Sovereign Immunity [Eklutna Gaming Operations]
Here are the materials in Holl v. Avery (D. Alaska):
Ninth Circuit Materials in Alaska v. US [subsistence fishing]
Here are the briefs (that I choose to post because the others are ridiculous):
Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Brief
D.C. Federal Court Transfers Eklutna Gaming Case to Alaska Federal Court
Here are the new materials in State of Alaska v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Complaint here.
Complaint in Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium v. Kennedy
Alaska Federal Court Dismisses Most of Challenge to Gold Mine Project
Here are the materials so far in Village of Dot Lake v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. Alaska):
11-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss
Termination-Bent Alaskans Sue NIGC Over Opinion that Trust Allotments in Alaska are Gaming-Eligible
Kirsten Carlson on Justice in Alaska
Kirsten Matoy Carlson has published “Justice Beyond the State” in the Alaska Law Review. PDF
Abstract:
For decades the intersectionality of extreme rurality and cultural difference has led scholars and tribal leaders to advocate for recognition of local authority as a solution to the justice gap in rural Alaska. Local control often means developing courts in and extending jurisdiction to Alaska Native villages. This Article evaluates strengthening tribal courts or justice systems through restorations of jurisdiction as a way to address access to justice issues in Alaska Native villages. It argues that restorations of jurisdiction and the development of tribal justice systems must ensure that Alaska Natives define the justice provided in their communities. Restorations of jurisdiction that require Alaska Native villages to replace their traditions and laws with adversarial processes and values threaten to undermine access to justice.
Tennessee COA Dismisses ICWA Appeal as Interlocutory, but Notes that Existing Indian Family Exception is NOT THE LAW
Here is the opinion in In re Epik W.:
The EIF excerpt:
In remanding the case, however, we would be remiss if we did not call the Juvenile Court’s attention to the shared agreement that both the Department and the Tribe have in this appeal regarding the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, which was the doctrinal basis upon which the Juvenile Court rejected the ICWA and denied the request for transfer. Indeed, in response to the Tribe’s general advocacy on appeal concerning the invalidity of the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, the Department has specifically disclaimed the vitality of the doctrine, arguing, as we previously noted, that federal regulations “foreclose reliance” on it. Although we have little doubt that the parties still disagree on other issues relevant to a decision to transfer this matter to the tribal court, the shared agreement between the Tribe and the Department regarding the Existing Indian Family Doctrine strongly counsels in favor of the Juvenile Court revisiting the transfer request (as the doctrine was its sole cited basis for denial).
There is only one public brief available, but it’s relevant:
Alaska Federal Court Holds Feds Can Acquire Land in Trust for Alaska Tribes
Here are the materials in State of Alaska v. Newland (D. Alaska):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.