On August 20, 2025, in United States v. Alaska No. 24‑2251, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal government’s authority to create a rural subsistence fishing priority in navigable waters on federal lands under Title VIII of ANILCA, as recognized in the Katie John line of cases.

Title VIII of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) establishes a “rural subsistence priority,” which generally provides that rural Alaska residents who fish and hunt for subsistence purposes are given priority over others in fishing and hunting on “public lands” whenever it is necessary to restrict fishing and hunting to protect the rural subsistence users’ ability to continue their subsistence uses. The Katie John cases established that “public lands” include navigable waters in which the United States holds reserved water rights.

At issue in United States v. Alaska was whether “public lands” can be interpreted differently under different sections of ANILCA. The court answered affirmatively, finding that Title I and Title VIII of ANILCA “can 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, where subsistence fishing ‘has traditionally taken place.’”

In 2021, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game issued orders that periodically opened the Kuskokwim for fishing by all state residents. These orders were in direct opposition to the federal government closing parts of the Kuskokwim to gillnet fishing to all except subsistence users, establishing a rural subsistence priority due to a decline of salmon in the Kuskokwim. In response, the federal government sued the State, and Alaska Native organizations intervened. The State argued that a 2019 United States Supreme Court case, Sturgeon II, effectively overruled the Katie John precedents when Sturgeon II held that under Title I of ANILCA, “public lands” did not include navigable waters where the United States holds reserved water rights. In a 2024 opinion, Federal District Court Judge Gleason rejected the State’s argument and issued a permanent injunction barring the State from undermining federally protected subsistence fishing rights.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the permanent injunction, holding that the Katie John line of cases is not irreconcilable with Sturgeon II. The Ninth Circuit interpreted the reference to “public lands” under Title VIII as broader than a similar reference to “public lands” under Title I that was construed by Sturgeon II. Relying on Congressional intent and Title VIII’s stated policy to assure the continuation of subsistence uses of fish populations, the Ninth Circuit found that the rural subsistence priority was intended to “apply to the waters and to the fish populations that rural subsistence users have traditionally fished and depended upon within conservation system units,” which include navigable waters. The Ninth Circuit recognized that the rural subsistence communities have long lived and fished on the Kuskokwim, and therefore it is public land that can be subject to a rural subsistence priority.

The ruling preserves federal protections that give priority to rural subsistence users—mostly Alaska Natives—in accessing critical salmon fisheries. However, the struggle over authority to manage subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska is expected to continue, as the State is anticipated to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors. This article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice for your situation, you should contact an attorney.