The State of Alaska is not ready to give up its fight just yet in the Kuskokwim subsistence fishing lawsuit. It has filed an appeal of a federal judge's decision to award $1.8 million in attorney fees to several Native groups that joined a federal lawsuit against the state over subsistence fishing rights.
Native groups say appeal prolongs costly legal fight
"It's yet another blow to Alaska Native organizations that are essentially taking money that they really should be using to be providing services and helping out folks in rural Alaska," said attorney Tanner Amdur-Clark, "to essentially fight for their lives against the State of Alaska."
Amdur-Clark represents the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, one of the intervening parties in the lawsuit, along with the Association of Village Council Presidents; the Alaska Federation of Natives; Ahtna Inc., a regional Native corporation; and Ahtna Tene Nené, a tribal advocacy group.
Amdur-Clark said that the groups collectively spent more on legal costs than the court awarded.
A dispute over subsistence rights and river management
While disputes over subsistence rights in Alaska have stretched back decades, this latest chapter began four years ago when the federal government and the state clashed over fisheries management on the Kuskokwim River in Southwest Alaska. Federal managers argued the state failed to uphold a rural subsistence priority, required under a federal law that gives preference to subsistence hunters and fishers, based on where they live.
Why Native organizations joined the lawsuit
Although the Alaska constitution does not allow for a rural preference, those rights have been repeatedly affirmed over the last 40 years in a series of lawsuits against the state — landmark litigation fought by the late Katie John and other Ahtna Elders. The Native organizations said they intervened in the Kuskokwim case to protect hard-won subsistence rights, secured through years of legal battles that consumed millions of dollars.
Like the earlier Katie John cases, the recent Kuskokwim subsistence lawsuit ended in a string of defeats for the state, culminating in the United States Supreme Court's decision not to hear Alaska's appeal.
State's legal costs surpasses $1 million
The Alaska Department of Law said that its legal tab on the subsistence case has passed the million-dollar mark, with in-house legal expenses of nearly $145,000 — and approximately $900,000 paid to outside counsel. In a statement, Acting Attorney General Cori Mills defended the state's spending.
"This case was brought by the U.S. against the State of Alaska — this case was not initiated or sought by the State," Mills said. "Four different groups voluntarily chose to intervene in the litigation in support of the federal government. Those groups then spent over $2 million on attorneys' fees, which they asked the federal court to order the State to pay. The court granted most of the amount requested, and the State is appealing the award because it is both legally impermissible and factually unreasonable."
State says case needed to clarify legal questions
In her statement, Mills also argued that the litigation was necessary to clarify how a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Sturgeon v. Frost case fits within the framework of earlier Katie John rulings — and how it would impact subsistence management on navigable waters.
The 2019 case involved John Sturgeon, an Anchorage moose hunter, who challenged federal restrictions on using his hovercraft within the Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve.
"That should not expose the State to such extortionate fees for groups whose participation was entirely voluntary," Mills said.
The Native organizations reject that characterization, arguing they intervened to defend subsistence rights that had already been established through decades of litigation.
Fight continues
Amdur-Clark said the state's continued challenge to the attorney fee award only adds to the financial burden for everyone involved. Nevertheless, he said the Native groups remain committed to protecting their subsistence rights, despite the mounting legal costs.
"Eventually, at the end of the day, it's the State of Alaska and the taxpayers of the state of Alaska that are going to pay for all of this," Amdur-Clark said. "The court got it right the first time. We'll continue the fight."
