In United States v. Alaska, No. 24-2251 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and the four Intervenors (Ahtna, Inc., Alaska Federation of Natives, Association of Village Council Presidents, and Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission) and the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction against the State of Alaska, holding that the Katie John Trilogy remains binding precedent because the Katie John cases are not clearly irreconcilable with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Sturgeon v. Frost (Sturgeon II).
In 2022, the federal government sued the State to enjoin it from enforcing emergency orders opening subsistence salmon fishing on the Kuskokwim River to “All Alaskans.” The State’s orders conflicted with federal orders issued under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”), which closed parts of the Kuskokwim River to salmon fishing except for qualified federal subsistence users. In March of 2024, the district court granted the United States’ and Intervenors’ motions for summary judgment and enjoined the State from enforcing its emergency orders. The district court determined that under Title VIII of ANILCA, the portions of the Kuskokwim River at issue were “public lands” based on the Ninth Circuit’s Katie John precedent and thus the federal orders preempted the conflicting state orders.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected the State’s argument that Sturgeon II overruled Katie John. The Court reasoned that although the Supreme Court in Sturgeon II held that “public lands” does not include navigable waters under Section 103(c) of ANILCA, the meaning of “public lands” under Title VIII of the statute must be broader to effectuate Congress’s intent to protect subsistence fishing—as traditionally practiced—in perpetuity. The Court’s conclusion was guided by the fact that most subsistence fishing has historically taken place on navigable waters. The Court also determined that Congress ratified Katie John’s interpretation of “public lands” through the 1998 and 1999 Appropriations Acts, which explicitly recognized the holding in Katie John I and appropriated funds to implement the rural subsistence priority in ANILCA as interpreted in that case. The Court held that Katie John and Sturgeon II could be “reasonably harmonized on the ground that the distinct context and statutory objective of Title VIII call for an interpretation of ‘public lands’ that includes navigable waters.”
This case is ongoing. The State has petitioned the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to hear its appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
* The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. These links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; LBB does not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.
