Implications of Indian Country in Alaska: opinion by House Speaker Gail Phillips and Senate Pres Mike Miller.

We strongly believe the Court of Appeals misinterpreted federal law in the Venetie decision, and that ANCSA is clear evidence of Congressional intent that there will be no Indian country in Alaska. The State argued that the land was granted, not to tribal organizations, but to state chartered corporations which were subject to state law. Congress did not intend the ANCSA land grant to be Indian country in Venetie. The State pointed out that ANCSA was not a grant of Indian country lands, but that the very terms of ANCSA show an intent by Congress that it not be considered Indian country. It quoted this language from ANCSA:

"...the [land] settlement should be accomplished...without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations, without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship, and without adding to the categories of property and institutions enjoying special tax privileges."

The Legislature believes the decision could have dangerous implications for Alaska. As one of the Court of Appeals judges who participated in the Venetie decision noted:

"We have been asked to blow up a blizzard of litigation throughout the State of Alaska as each and every tribe seeks to test the limits of its power over what it deems to be its Indian country. There are hundreds of tribes, and the litigation permutations are as vast as the capacity of fine human minds can make them. They can include claims to freedom from state taxation and regulation, claims to regulate and tax for tribal purposes, assertions of sovereignty over vast areas of Alaska, and even assertions that tribes can regulate and tax the various corporations created to hold ANCSA land. The latter assertion would give the tribes the power to control, regulate and tax those corporations out of existence and would provide a fruitful area for intertribal conflict. This is no imaginative parade of horribles."

[Judge Fernandez, concurring opinion]

Beyond the massive litigation that will likely result, Alaska's authority over its own land and citizens will shrink substantially. If the decision of the Court of Appeals is upheld, a complex web of governing units will be spread across the state, resulting in social divisiveness and controversy for all.

The Potential Consequences of Indian Country in Alaska

The following is a brief description of the potential consequences of a broad finding of Indian country in Alaska. The conclusions are...