A federal judge in Anchorage has ruled that the Interior Department can hold land in trust on behalf of Alaska Native tribes, a decision that could allow the tribes to create “Indian lands,” which were largely eliminated in Alaska by the 53-year-old Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

In a 39-page summary judgmentJudge Sharon Gleason ruled largely, but not entirely, against the State of Alaska, which sued the Interior Department in 2023 to challenge a legal memo saying the department believes it has the authority to take land into trust on behalf of the state 228 state-recognized tribes.

Wednesday’s proceedings concerned the decision of the Biden Interior Department to accept a trust application from the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska seeking protection a 787 square meter plot in downtown Juneau.

Gleason said that while the Interior Department has the authority to place land into trust, the process for the Tlingit and Haida applications was flawed and needs to be revised.

Transferring the land into a trust would place it under tribal law and protect it from sale or taxation by city and state officials, effectively cementing their authority. Tlingit and Haida have worked for decades to transfer parts of the historic “Indian Village” of Juneau into a trust.

The United States District Court for Washington, DC, previously decided in favor of the right of Alaska Native tribes to place land in trust. However, that ruling was later overturned by an appeals court, and Interior Department regulations have fluctuated depending on the party controlling the White House.

The Democratic Obama and the Biden administrations have supported Alaska tribes' efforts to place their lands under tribal rule, while the Republican Bush and Trump administrations have opposed them.

“I think the most important takeaway for the tribe is that this is the second time a federal judge has ruled that the secretary of the interior still has the authority to take land into trust in Alaska. The state has fought this several times now and lost,” said Whitney Leonard, an attorney who represented Tlingit and Haida in court.

Lawyers for the Interior Ministry declined to comment on the decision.

Most Alaska Native lands are owned by Native societies, which are governed by state and federal law. Alaska Native tribes, which are sovereign governments and can exercise authority over Land of the Indianshave relatively little land under their control.

“From the tribe's perspective,” Leonard said, “it's really important for the tribe to take control of its land and determine how that land is allocated and used in perpetuity. That's why the tribe has made a concerted effort over decades to go through that process and take the land into trust.”

Attorneys for the state of Alaska argued that while the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 did not explicitly prohibit the Department of the Interior from holding land in trust on behalf of tribes, Congress's actions suggested that it intended to do so.

In legal arguments, the state expressed concern that transferring land into a trust could lead to the fragmentation of Alaska into a variety of different jurisdictions.

“We filed this lawsuit because it would create a patchwork of reservation enclaves scattered across the state,” Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said in an emailed statement Wednesday. “The judge's decision today ensures that won't happen for now. The agency's decision has been overturned, and the agency will have to overcome some pretty big hurdles to grant a motion in the future. What the decision did not accomplish was the clarity and finality that the state ultimately sought.”

Lawyers representing the federal government and Tlingit and Haida argued that the actual wording of the federal law – which does not prohibit the taking of land into trust – should be the deciding factor.

To support their argument, prosecutors argued that the issue was an “important question.” This classification is anchored in federal court case law, which states that Congress must expressly grant authority to an agency when a decision of extreme economic and political importance is at stake.

Gleason rejected this idea, saying, among other things, that the problem “will neither affect millions of Americans nor consume billions of dollars.”

She further stated that although the state had suggested that “the court should nevertheless find that (the transfer of land into a trust) was impliedly set aside, the court declined to do so.”

In an oral hearing this spring, Gleason expressed skepticism about the rules by which the federal government decides who can put land into trust here.

The state of Alaska had argued that the federal government's decision in the Tlingit and Haida case would allow “any person of Native American descent in Alaska, regardless of the percentage of 'Indian blood,'” to place land in a trust. In the Lower 48, someone must be “half or more” Native American to place land in a trust.

Gleason agreed with the state's argument, saying the Interior Department must determine whether a tribe meets one of three definitions under federal law before transferring land into a trust.

She also “finds” the Interior Department's statement that it is transferring Tlingit and Haida lands to a trust fund as part of “Indian land restoration” “problematic.”

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act explicitly ended Alaska Native property rights, Gleason said. While the Interior Department can place tribal land into trust, it cannot justify that decision by saying it is returning the land to a tribe.

This finding is rather academic. It does not prevent the Department from placing historic tribal lands into trust; the federal government simply cannot cite that historic use as justification for doing so.

It is unclear whether Wednesday's decision will be appealed. All sides said they are still reviewing Gleason's order.

“On the one hand, the court definitely had issues with the language in the ANCSA that abolished the reservation system and seemed to indicate that reservations are not permitted in Alaska. On the other hand, the court still ruled that land can be taken into trust. Because this decision ultimately raises more questions than answers, we will need some time to thoroughly review it before determining next steps,” Taylor said via email.