On Monday, January 12, 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied the State of Alaska’s petition to review the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Alaska (No. 24-2251). The Court’s decision to leave the Ninth Circuit’s ruling undisturbed represents a critical victory for rural Alaskans, and particularly Alaska Natives, for whom subsistence hunting and fishing are foundational lifeways and essential sources of nutrition.
At issue in the Ninth Circuit was the meaning of the term “public lands,” as used in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”). In a series of cases known as the “Katie John Trilogy,” the Ninth Circuit had previously held that “public lands” for purposes of Title VIII, which provides for a rural priority to engage in subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska, encompasses navigable waters in and adjacent to federal parks, preserves, and conservation units within the state. Alaska sought to challenge the validity of the Katie John Trilogy following the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Sturgeon v. Frost (“Sturgeon II”), in which the Court held that “public lands” does not include navigable waters for purposes of Section 103(c) of ANILCA, a provision unrelated to subsistence fishing. After the State issued orders in 2022 permitting subsistence salmon fishing on portions of the Kuskokwim River for “All Alaskans,” orders which directly conflicted with Katie John, the federal government sued.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government and a coalition of Tribal Intervenors, rejecting the State’s argument that Sturgeon II overruled Katie John. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the distinct context and statutory objectives of Title VIII, in contrast to those of Section 103(c), necessitate a broader interpretation of “public lands” that includes navigable waters where most subsistence fishing has traditionally occurred. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed federal authority to manage subsistence fishing on navigable waters in Alaska on behalf of rural Alaskans, including Alaska Natives.
By denying the State’s petition for review, the Supreme Court has confirmed that Katie John remains good law. This decision ensures that the federal government can continue to enforce Title VIII’s rural subsistence priority on navigable waters, as it has for three decades since the first Katie John decision was issued. As a result, the right of Alaska Natives and other rural Alaskans to practice their traditional subsistence lifeways remains protected.
* 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.
