Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

Alaska SCT Decides Alaska Native Corporation Shareholder Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Rude v. Cook Inlet Region Inc.

An excerpt:

Robert Rude and Harold Rudolph are shareholders and former directors of Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI). They distributed a joint proxy solicitation in an attempt to be elected to the CIRI board of directors at CIRI’s 2010 annual meeting. Rude and Rudolph accumulated over one quarter of the total outstanding votes, but CIRI’s Inspector of Election refused to allow them to cumulate their votes. Thus, their votes were split evenly between the two of them and neither was seated. We conclude that the language of this proxy form required the shareholders’ votes to be equally distributed between Rude and Rudolph unless a shareholder indicated otherwise. We therefore affirm the superior court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of CIRI on this issue.

Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit against Alaska Assn. of Village Presidents on Immunity Grounds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Eaglesun Systems Products Inc. v. Association of Village Council Presidents (N.D. Okla.):

22 Motion to Dismiss

25 Opposition

33 Reply

41 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

Now before the Court are the following motions: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 22), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 27), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery (Dkt. # 36). Defendant Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) argues that it has sovereign immunity from suit because all of its members are federally-recognized Indian tribes and AVCP was created to provide governmental services for its members. Plaintiff Eaglesun Systems Products, Inc. responds that AVCP is a non-profit corporation organized under state law, and it is not entitled to sovereign immunity as an Indian tribe or as a tribal organization. Plaintiff also requests leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery before the Court rules on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Federal Court Denies Alaska and US Motions for Reconsideration in Akiachak Native Community v. Jewell

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

112-1 Alaska Motion for Reconsideration

113 Akiachak Opposition

116 Akiachak Supplemental Memorandum

118 Interior Supplemental Memorandum

119 Alaska Supplemental Memorandum

120 Interior Motion for Reconsideration + Exhibits

121 Interior Response to Alaska Motion

124 Akiachak Reply

126 Alaska Reply

127 Akiachak Response to Interior Motion

129 Interior Reply

130 Akiachak 09-30-2013 denying motion for reconsideration

The previous posts in this case are here and here.

Federal Court Holds Interior Secretary Retains Authority to Make Trust Land Acquisitions for Alaska Natives

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Akiachak Native Community v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

DCT Order Granting Summary J to Plaintiffs

Akiachak et al Motion for Summary J

DOI Motion for Summary J

DOI Supplemental Brief

Akiachak Supplemental Reply Brief

An excerpt:

Four tribes of Alaska Natives and one individual Native brought this suit to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s decision to leave in place a regulation that treats Alaska Natives differently from other native peoples. The challenged regulation governs the taking of land into trust under Section 5of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 465; it provides that, with one exception, the regulatory procedures “do not cover the acquisition of land in trust status in the State of Alaska.” 25 C.F.R. § 151.1. The plaintiffs argue that this exclusion of Alaska Natives-and only Alaska Natives-from the land-into-trust application process is void under 25 U.S.C. § 476(g), which nullifies regulations that discriminate among Indian tribes. The State of Alaska has intervened to argue that the differential treatment is required by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA” or the “Claims Settlement Act”), which (on the State’s account) deprived the Secretary of the statutory authority to take most Alaska land into trust.

The Secretary disagrees, but nonetheless seeks to justify the regulation by reference to ANCSA. For the reasons explained below, the court concludes [2] that the Secretary retains his statutory authority to take land into trust on behalf of all Alaska Natives, and that his decision to maintain the exclusion of most Natives from the land-into-trust regulation violates 25 U.S.C. § 476(g), which provides that contrary regulations “shall have no force or effect.” The court therefore grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and orders additional briefing on the question of the proper remedy.

Federal Claims Court Dismisses Pro Se Claim to ANCSA Money

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Evans v. United States:

Evans v US

Ninth Circuit Affirms Fed. Court Jurisdiction over ANCSA Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Cook Inlet Region, Inc. v. Rude:

Rude & Rudolph Opening Brief

Cook Inlet Region Answer Brief

Rude & Rudolph Reply Brief

CA9 opinion

Lower court materials:

DCT Order Granting Partial Summary J

Cook Inlet Complaint

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is 40 Years Old This Year!

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the statute.

Anyone out there doing a retrospective?

 

Ninilchik Native Assn. v. Cook Inlet Region — Rule 19 Motion Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Ninilchik Natives Association, Inc. v. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (D. Alaska):

Ninilchick Complaint

Cook Inlet Rule 19 Motion

Ninilchick Response

Cook Inlet Reply

DCT Order re Rule 19 Motion

NYTs Article on Alaskan Native Corporations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

The Alaska Native corporations have had Senator Ted Stevens to thank nearly every step of the way.

In 1971, a few years after he was first elected to the Senate, Mr. Stevens helped write the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Also known as the “Billion Dollar Deal,” the act established more than 200 corporations to manage almost 45 million acres and gave $962 million to Alaska Natives in return for their ceding of all aboriginal land rights.

When the Alaska Native corporations struggled in their early years as they tried to turn people who had survived on fishing and hunting into business managers and to teach thousands of villagers to call themselves shareholders, Senator Stevens was there, too.

He helped corporations with financial difficulties by persuading Congress to approve a provision in the 1986 Tax Reform Act allowing the corporations to sell their accumulated tax losses to profitable companies seeking tax write-offs.

Continue reading →

Bob Anderson on Treaty Substitutes in the Modern Era

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Bob Anderson has posted “Treaty Substitutes in the Modern Era” on SSRN. This paper is a book chapter in the forthcoming book “The Power of Promises: Rethinking Indian Treaties in the Pacific Northwest,” edited by Alexandra Harmon.

Here is the abstract:

This chapter compares two modern Indian property settlements processes – the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Snake River Basin Water Rights Settlement – with the mode of agreements in the Pacific Northwest in the mid-19th Century.