About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


50 NARF Legal Rev. 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/narf50 and id is 1 raw text is: NARFS WORK IN ALASKA OVER THE YEARS The Native American Rights Fund has provided legal assistance to Tribes in Alaska since NARF's founding in the early 1970s. In 1984, NARF opened an Alaska office so it could better serve Alaska Native Tribes and individuals. In the 40 years since NARF Alaska opened its doors, the office has litigated some of the most influential cases in the development of federal Indian law in Alaska. Below is an overview of the foundational work that NARF has done with and on behalf of Alaska Native Tribal governments and people. NARF's Early Work in Alaska Since the early 1970s, NARF has helped Alaska Native people and Tribes protect their rights and assert their sovereignty. Our earliest work in Alaska began in 1972 with assisting an Alaska Native organization and Alaska Native villages with the establishment and defense of the North Slope Borough (Mobil Oil v. Local Boundary Commission; Edwardsen v. Morton). Through the establishment of a borough, communities in the region could then tax oil and gas infrastructure as exploration and production began. In the mid-1970s, NARF also assisted with Hootch v. Alaska-a landmark case that challenged the lack of secondary schools in most rural Alaska Native villages and led to the establishment of high schools in many rural communities across the state. NARF also helped with some of the first Self-Determination 638 contracts in Alaska and represented an Alaska Native herder in a challenge to federal taxation of income from the operation of a reindeer herd held in trust for Alaska Native herders (Karmun v. Commissioner). Recognition, Tribal Status, and Tribal Rights Alaska gained statehood in 1959, and in the decades following, the state asserted that no Tribes existed in Alaska. In a broad range of cases, NARF Alaska has helped Tribes assert their sovereignty and fight back against efforts by the state to undermine those rights. NARF's work on these issues have addressed the existence of Tribes in the state (Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford), the ability of Tribal governments to receive revenue-sharing payments (Native Village of Akiachak v. Nottz), and that core principles of federal Indian law apply to Alaska Native villages (Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie). In several different instances, NARF Alaska has helped Tribes assert and defend their sovereign immunity. NARF represented the Ivanof Bay Village in a case that affirmed Tribal sovereignty immunity (McCrary v. Ivanof Bay Village). And NARF recently represented several Tribes and Tribal Consortia as amici in Ito v. Copper River Native Association, which affirmed that Tribal consortiums possess sovereignty immunity-overturning its longstanding precedent that held otherwise. Indian Country, Taxation, and Trust Lands In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which terminated all but one reservation in Alaska and transferred millions of acres of land to newly formed for-profit Alaska Native Corporations. In the wake of ANCSA, NARF has helped Tribes navigate the complex issues involving Tribal jurisdiction over lands. For example, NARF helped Tribes assert immunity from municipal taxes (Cigy of Nome v. Nome Eskimo Communip), navigate the effects of