Print #15. Alaska Native land rights court cases superimposed over date range

1867-2017 with list of Alaska Native Rights Court Cases
Print #15. Alaska Native land rights court cases superimposed over date range. 48×24″, 13 oz scrim vinyl.

Text & Citations for Print #15: Alaska Native land rights court cases superimposed over date range

100+ years of court cases and legislative actions in small print superimposed over the 1867-2017 date range. I got excerpts of the legal cases from the website Thomson Reuters Westlaw, which is accessible through our library database service.

119 F. 83Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.HECKMAN et al.v.SUTTER et al.No. 792.November 10, 1902.Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Division No. 1 of the District of Alaska.Heckman v. Sutter, 119 F. 83 (9th Cir. 1902)2 Alaska 224District Court, District of Alaska, First Division.JOHNSON ET AL.vPACIFIC COAST S. S. CO.No. 159a.July 9, 1904.Johnson v. Pac. Coast S. S. Co., 2 Alaska 224 (D. Alaska 1904)United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905)2 Alaska 442District Court, District of Alaska, Third Division.UNITED STATESvBERRIGAN ET AL.No. 270.June 21, 1905.United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905)5 Alaska 125District Court, Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division.UNITED STATESvCADZOW ET AL.No. 1953.May 16, 1914.United States v. Cadzow, 5 Alaska 125 (D. Alaska 1914)229 F. 966Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.WORTHEN LUMBER MILLSv.ALASKA JUNEAU GOLD MINING CO.a1No. 2640.February 7, 1916.Rehearing Denied March 6, 1916.Worthen Lumber Mills v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co, 229 F. 966 (9th Cir. 1916)7 Alaska 568District Court, Territory of Alaska, First Division.UNITED STATESvLYNCH ET AL.No. 764–KA.January 31, 1927.United States v. Lynch, 7 Alaska 568 (D. Alaska 1927)74 S.Ct. 864Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, as Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 696.June 7, 1954Facts and opinion, Ct.Cl., 120 F.Supp. 202.Attorneys and Law FirmsTee Hit Ton Indians v. United States, 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S. Ct. 864, 98 L. Ed. 1133 (1954)75 S.Ct. 521Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, an Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, petitioner,v.UNITED STATES.No. 43.March 14, 1955Former decision, 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S.Ct. 864, 98 L.Ed. 1133; 348 U.S. 272, 75 S.Ct. 313.Facts and opinion, 120 F.Supp. 202; 128 Ct.Cl. 82.OpinionTee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 965, 75 S. Ct. 521, 99 L. Ed. 753 (1955)75 S.Ct. 313Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, An Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, Petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 43.Argued Nov. 12, 1954.Decided Feb. 7, 1955.Rehearing Denied March 14, 1955.See 348 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 521.Action by Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, an Alaskan clan, to recover compensation from United States for taking of timber on Indian-occupied lands. The Court of Claims,Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)United States Court of Claims.TEE-HIT-TON INDIANSv.UNITED STATES.No. 50385.April 6, 1954.Writ of Certiorari Granted June 7, 1954.See 74 S.Ct. 864.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1954), aff’d, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)120 F.Supp. 202United States Court of Claims.TEE-HIT-TON INDIANSv.UNITED STATES.No. 50385.April 6, 1954.Writ of Certiorari Granted June 7, 1954.See 74 S.Ct. 864.Suit by Tee-hit-ton Indians, a clan of American Indians in Alaska, on claim that a compensable interest in land belonging to them was taken when the United States agreed to sell to a pulp and paper company all merchantable timber on specified portion of land from which the clan had exploited by taking fish, game, berries and roots. The Court of Claims, Madden, J., on proceeding to determine certain issues only, held, inter alia, that the clan was an identifiable group of American Indians so that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction of the claim.Order in accordance with opinion.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1954), aff’d, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)177 F.Supp. 452United States Court of Claims.TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKAv.UNITED STATES.No. 47900.Oct. 7, 1959.Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 177 F. Supp. 452 (Ct. Cl. 1959)389 F.2d 778United States Court of Claims.The TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKA and Harry Douglas et al., Intervenors,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 47900.Jan. 19, 1968.Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 389 F.2d 778 (Ct. Cl. 1968)82 S.Ct. 562Supreme Court of the United StatesORGANIZED WILLAGE OF KAKE, and Angoon Community Association, Appellants,v.William A. EGAN, Governor of Alaska.No. 3.Argued Dec. 13 and 14, 1961.Decided March 5, 1962.Organized Vill. of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S. Ct. 562, 7 L. Ed. 2d 573 (1962)1997 WL 634306 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief.STATE of Alaska, Petitioner,v.NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, et al., Respondents.No. 96-1577.October Term, 1997.Oct. 14, 1997.On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitBRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE KONIAG, INC., IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, ET AL.State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 1997 WL 634306 (U.S.) (U.S.Amicus.Brief,1997)420 F.2d 938United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,v.Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior; Boyd L. Rasmussen, Director,Bureau of Land Management; Burton L. Silcock, State Director for Alaska, Bureauof Land Management; and Robert C. Krumm, Manager, Fairbanks Land Office, Bureauof LandManagement, Appellants.STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,v.NATIVE VILLAGE OF NENANA, Appellant.Nos. 23603, 23597.Dec. 19, 1969.State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969)369 F.Supp. 1359United States District Court,District of Columbia.Charles EDWARDSEN, Jr., Individually and as Executive Director of the Arctic Slope Native Association, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and his successors and predecessors in Office, et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. 2014-71.April 19, 1973.Edwardsen v. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1973)72 F.3d 698United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants–Appellees.Katie JOHN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants–Appellants.Nos. 94–35480, 94–35481.Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1995.Opinion Filed April 20, 1995.Opinion Withdrawn Dec. 19, 1995.Decided Dec. 19, 1995.State of Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995), adhered to sub nom. John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2001)720 F.3d 1214United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.Katie JOHN; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana; State of Alaska, Plaintiffs,andAlaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors–Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell,* Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.Katie John; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana, Plaintiffs,Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,andState of Alaska, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.United States Of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.Katie John; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana, Plaintiffs–Appellants,andState of Alaska, Plaintiff,Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,v.United States of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.No. 09–36122, 09–36125, 09–36127.Argued and Submitted July 25, 2011.Filed July 5, 2013.John v. United States, 720 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2013)502 F.Supp.2d 64United States District Court,District of Columbia.AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 06–969 (RWR).Aug. 21, 2007.SynopsisAkiachak Native Cmty. v. Dep’t of Interior, 502 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2007)827 F.3d 100United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.Akiachak Native Community, et al., Appelleesv.United States Department of the Interior and Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, AppelleesState of Alaska, AppellantNo. 13-5360Argued March 4, 2016Decided July 1, 2016Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016)680 F.2d 122United States Court of Claims.INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF the ARCTIC SLOPEv.The UNITED STATES.No. 596-77.June 2, 1982.Inupiat Cmty. of Arctic Slope v. United States, 680 F.2d 122 (Ct. Cl. 1982)548 F.Supp. 182United States District Court, D. Alaska.The INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF the ARCTIC SLOPE, a federally-recognized Indian tribe; Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, a native village corporation, et al., Plaintiffs,v.The UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.No. A 81-19 Civil.Oct. 1, 1982.Inupiat Cmty. of Arctic Slope v. United States, 548 F. Supp. 182 (D. Alaska 1982), aff’d, 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984)470 F.Supp. 423United States District Court, District of Columbia.PEOPLE OF TOGIAK et al., Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. 77-0264.April 3, 1979.People of Togiak v. United States, 470 F. Supp. 423 (D.D.C. 1979)642 F.2d 589United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Intervenors.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard A. Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.Nos. 80-1148, 80-1150, 80-1151, 80-1164, 80-1169, 80-1184 and 80-1190 to 80-1192.Argued 15 May 1980.Decided 9 Oct. 1980.Rehearing Denied 19 Nov. 1980.N. Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980)642 F.2d 589United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Intervenors.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard A. Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.Nos. 80-1148, 80-1150, 80-1151, 80-1164, 80-1169, 80-1184 and 80-1190 to 80-1192.Argued 15 May 1980.Decided 9 Oct. 1980.Rehearing Denied 19 Nov. 1980.N. Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980)18 U.S.C.A. § 1151§ 1151. Indian country definedCurrentnessExcept as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.CREDIT(S)18 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West)(a) Offenses other than marking offensesIt is unlawful for any person(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law;(B) any plant(i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates(I) the theft of plants;(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;16 U.S.C.A. § 3372 (West)PL 97–79, NOVEMBER 16, 1981, 95 Stat 1073UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS97th Congress – First SessionConvening January 5, 1981DATA SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (SEE SCOPE)Additions and Deletions are not identified in this document.PL 97–79 (S 736)NOVEMBER 16, 1981An Act to provide for the control of illegally taken fish and wildlife.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That this Act // USC 3401 // may be cited as the ” Lacey Act Amendments of 1981”.PL 97–79 (S 736), PL 97–79, NOVEMBER 16, 1981, 95 Stat 1073Effective: May 12, 200643 U.S.C.A. § 1613a§ 1613a. ANCSA amendmentCurrentnessAll land and interests in land in the State of Alaska conveyed by the Federal Government under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to a Native Corporation and reconveyed by that Native Corporation, or a successor in interest, in exchange for any other land or interest in land in the State of Alaska and located within the same region (as defined in section 9(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1608(a)),1 to a Native Corporation under an exchange or other conveyance, shall be deemed, notwithstanding the conveyance or exchange, to have been conveyed pursuant to that Act.CREDIT(S)(Pub.L. 109-221, Title I, § 102, May 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 337.)43 U.S.C.A. § 1613a (West)43 U.S.C.A. § 1601§ 1601. Congressional findings and declaration of policyCurrentnessCongress finds and declares that(a) there is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims;43 U.S.C.A. § 1601 (West)935 F.Supp.2d 195United States District Court,District of Columbia.AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Kenneth SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants,andThe State of Alaska, Intervenor.Civil Action No. 06–969 (RC).March 31, 2013.SynopsisAkiachak Native Cmty. v. Salazar, 935 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C.), on reconsideration in part sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. Jewell, 995 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), vacated sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and vacated sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016)119 F. 83Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.HECKMAN et al.v.SUTTER et al.No. 792.November 10, 1902.Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Division No. 1 of the District of Alaska.Heckman v. Sutter, 119 F. 83 (9th Cir. 1902)2 Alaska 224District Court, District of Alaska, First Division.JOHNSON ET AL.vPACIFIC COAST S. S. CO.No. 159a.July 9, 1904.Johnson v. Pac. Coast S. S. Co., 2 Alaska 224 (D. Alaska 1904)United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905)2 Alaska 442District Court, District of Alaska, Third Division.UNITED STATESvBERRIGAN ET AL.No. 270.June 21, 1905.United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905)5 Alaska 125District Court, Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division.UNITED STATESvCADZOW ET AL.No. 1953.May 16, 1914.United States v. Cadzow, 5 Alaska 125 (D. Alaska 1914)229 F. 966Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.WORTHEN LUMBER MILLSv.ALASKA JUNEAU GOLD MINING CO.a1No. 2640.February 7, 1916.Rehearing Denied March 6, 1916.Worthen Lumber Mills v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co, 229 F. 966 (9th Cir. 1916)7 Alaska 568District Court, Territory of Alaska, First Division.UNITED STATESvLYNCH ET AL.No. 764–KA.January 31, 1927.United States v. Lynch, 7 Alaska 568 (D. Alaska 1927)74 S.Ct. 864Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, as Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 696.June 7, 1954Facts and opinion, Ct.Cl., 120 F.Supp. 202.Attorneys and Law FirmsTee Hit Ton Indians v. United States, 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S. Ct. 864, 98 L. Ed. 1133 (1954)75 S.Ct. 521Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, an Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, petitioner,v.UNITED STATES.No. 43.March 14, 1955Former decision, 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S.Ct. 864, 98 L.Ed. 1133; 348 U.S. 272, 75 S.Ct. 313.Facts and opinion, 120 F.Supp. 202; 128 Ct.Cl. 82.OpinionTee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 965, 75 S. Ct. 521, 99 L. Ed. 753 (1955)75 S.Ct. 313Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, An Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, Petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 43.Argued Nov. 12, 1954.Decided Feb. 7, 1955.Rehearing Denied March 14, 1955.See 348 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 521.Action by Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, an Alaskan clan, to recover compensation from United States for taking of timber on Indian-occupied lands. The Court of Claims,Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)United States Court of Claims.TEE-HIT-TON INDIANSv.UNITED STATES.No. 50385.April 6, 1954.Writ of Certiorari Granted June 7, 1954.See 74 S.Ct. 864.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1954), aff’d, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)120 F.Supp. 202United States Court of Claims.TEE-HIT-TON INDIANSv.UNITED STATES.No. 50385.April 6, 1954.Writ of Certiorari Granted June 7, 1954.See 74 S.Ct. 864.Suit by Tee-hit-ton Indians, a clan of American Indians in Alaska, on claim that a compensable interest in land belonging to them was taken when the United States agreed to sell to a pulp and paper company all merchantable timber on specified portion of land from which the clan had exploited by taking fish, game, berries and roots. The Court of Claims, Madden, J., on proceeding to determine certain issues only, held, inter alia, that the clan was an identifiable group of American Indians so that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction of the claim.Order in accordance with opinion.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1954), aff’d, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)177 F.Supp. 452United States Court of Claims.TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKAv.UNITED STATES.No. 47900.Oct. 7, 1959.Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 177 F. Supp. 452 (Ct. Cl. 1959)389 F.2d 778United States Court of Claims.The TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKA and Harry Douglas et al., Intervenors,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 47900.Jan. 19, 1968.Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 389 F.2d 778 (Ct. Cl. 1968)82 S.Ct. 562Supreme Court of the United StatesORGANIZED WILLAGE OF KAKE, and Angoon Community Association, Appellants,v.William A. EGAN, Governor of Alaska.No. 3.Argued Dec. 13 and 14, 1961.Decided March 5, 1962.Organized Vill. of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S. Ct. 562, 7 L. Ed. 2d 573 (1962)1997 WL 634306 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief.STATE of Alaska, Petitioner,v.NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, et al., Respondents.No. 96-1577.October Term, 1997.Oct. 14, 1997.On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitBRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE KONIAG, INC., IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, ET AL.State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 1997 WL 634306 (U.S.) (U.S.Amicus.Brief,1997)420 F.2d 938United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,v.Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior; Boyd L. Rasmussen, Director,Bureau of Land Management; Burton L. Silcock, State Director for Alaska, Bureauof Land Management; and Robert C. Krumm, Manager, Fairbanks Land Office, Bureauof LandManagement, Appellants.STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,v.NATIVE VILLAGE OF NENANA, Appellant.Nos. 23603, 23597.Dec. 19, 1969.State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969)369 F.Supp. 1359United States District Court,District of Columbia.Charles EDWARDSEN, Jr., Individually and as Executive Director of the Arctic Slope Native Association, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and his successors and predecessors in Office, et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. 2014-71.April 19, 1973.Edwardsen v. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1973)72 F.3d 698United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants–Appellees.Katie JOHN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants–Appellants.Nos. 94–35480, 94–35481.Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1995.Opinion Filed April 20, 1995.Opinion Withdrawn Dec. 19, 1995.Decided Dec. 19, 1995.State of Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995), adhered to sub nom. John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2001)720 F.3d 1214United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.Katie JOHN; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana; State of Alaska, Plaintiffs,andAlaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors–Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell,* Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.Katie John; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana, Plaintiffs,Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,andState of Alaska, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.United States Of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.Katie John; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana, Plaintiffs–Appellants,andState of Alaska, Plaintiff,Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,v.United States of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.No. 09–36122, 09–36125, 09–36127.Argued and Submitted July 25, 2011.Filed July 5, 2013.John v. United States, 720 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2013)502 F.Supp.2d 64United States District Court,District of Columbia.AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 06–969 (RWR).Aug. 21, 2007.SynopsisAkiachak Native Cmty. v. Dep’t of Interior, 502 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2007)827 F.3d 100United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.Akiachak Native Community, et al., Appelleesv.United States Department of the Interior and Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, AppelleesState of Alaska, AppellantNo. 13-5360Argued March 4, 2016Decided July 1, 2016Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016)680 F.2d 122United States Court of Claims.INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF the ARCTIC SLOPEv.The UNITED STATES.No. 596-77.June 2, 1982.Inupiat Cmty. of Arctic Slope v. United States, 680 F.2d 122 (Ct. Cl. 1982)548 F.Supp. 182United States District Court, D. Alaska.The INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF the ARCTIC SLOPE, a federally-recognized Indian tribe; Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, a native village corporation, et al., Plaintiffs,v.The UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.No. A 81-19 Civil.Oct. 1, 1982.Inupiat Cmty. of Arctic Slope v. United States, 548 F. Supp. 182 (D. Alaska 1982), aff’d, 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984)470 F.Supp. 423United States District Court, District of Columbia.PEOPLE OF TOGIAK et al., Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. 77-0264.April 3, 1979.People of Togiak v. United States, 470 F. Supp. 423 (D.D.C. 1979)642 F.2d 589United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Intervenors.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard A. Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.Nos. 80-1148, 80-1150, 80-1151, 80-1164, 80-1169, 80-1184 and 80-1190 to 80-1192.Argued 15 May 1980.Decided 9 Oct. 1980.Rehearing Denied 19 Nov. 1980.N. Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980)642 F.2d 589United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Intervenors.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard A. Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.Nos. 80-1148, 80-1150, 80-1151, 80-1164, 80-1169, 80-1184 and 80-1190 to 80-1192.Argued 15 May 1980.Decided 9 Oct. 1980.Rehearing Denied 19 Nov. 1980.N. Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980)18 U.S.C.A. § 1151§ 1151. Indian country definedCurrentnessExcept as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.CREDIT(S)18 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West)(a) Offenses other than marking offensesIt is unlawful for any person(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law;(B) any plant(i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates(I) the theft of plants;(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;16 U.S.C.A. § 3372 (West)PL 97–79, NOVEMBER 16, 1981, 95 Stat 1073UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS97th Congress – First SessionConvening January 5, 1981DATA SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (SEE SCOPE)Additions and Deletions are not identified in this document.PL 97–79 (S 736)NOVEMBER 16, 1981An Act to provide for the control of illegally taken fish and wildlife.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That this Act // USC 3401 // may be cited as the ” Lacey Act Amendments of 1981”.PL 97–79 (S 736), PL 97–79, NOVEMBER 16, 1981, 95 Stat 1073Effective: May 12, 200643 U.S.C.A. § 1613a§ 1613a. ANCSA amendmentCurrentnessAll land and interests in land in the State of Alaska conveyed by the Federal Government under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to a Native Corporation and reconveyed by that Native Corporation, or a successor in interest, in exchange for any other land or interest in land in the State of Alaska and located within the same region (as defined in section 9(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1608(a)),1 to a Native Corporation under an exchange or other conveyance, shall be deemed, notwithstanding the conveyance or exchange, to have been conveyed pursuant to that Act.CREDIT(S)(Pub.L. 109-221, Title I, § 102, May 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 337.)43 U.S.C.A. § 1613a (West)43 U.S.C.A. § 1601§ 1601. Congressional findings and declaration of policyCurrentnessCongress finds and declares that(a) there is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims;43 U.S.C.A. § 1601 (West)935 F.Supp.2d 195United States District Court,District of Columbia.AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Kenneth SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants,andThe State of Alaska, Intervenor.Civil Action No. 06–969 (RC).March 31, 2013.SynopsisAkiachak Native Cmty. v. Salazar, 935 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C.), on reconsideration in part sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. Jewell, 995 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), vacated sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and vacated sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016)119 F. 83Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.HECKMAN et al.v.SUTTER et al.No. 792.November 10, 1902.Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Division No. 1 of the District of Alaska.Heckman v. Sutter, 119 F. 83 (9th Cir. 1902)2 Alaska 224District Court, District of Alaska, First Division.JOHNSON ET AL.vPACIFIC COAST S. S. CO.No. 159a.July 9, 1904.Johnson v. Pac. Coast S. S. Co., 2 Alaska 224 (D. Alaska 1904)United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905)2 Alaska 442District Court, District of Alaska, Third Division.UNITED STATESvBERRIGAN ET AL.No. 270.June 21, 1905.United States v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905)5 Alaska 125District Court, Territory of Alaska, Fourth Division.UNITED STATESvCADZOW ET AL.No. 1953.May 16, 1914.United States v. Cadzow, 5 Alaska 125 (D. Alaska 1914)229 F. 966Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.WORTHEN LUMBER MILLSv.ALASKA JUNEAU GOLD MINING CO.a1No. 2640.February 7, 1916.Rehearing Denied March 6, 1916.Worthen Lumber Mills v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co, 229 F. 966 (9th Cir. 1916)7 Alaska 568District Court, Territory of Alaska, First Division.UNITED STATESvLYNCH ET AL.No. 764–KA.January 31, 1927.United States v. Lynch, 7 Alaska 568 (D. Alaska 1927)74 S.Ct. 864Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, as Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 696.June 7, 1954Facts and opinion, Ct.Cl., 120 F.Supp. 202.Attorneys and Law FirmsTee Hit Ton Indians v. United States, 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S. Ct. 864, 98 L. Ed. 1133 (1954)75 S.Ct. 521Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, an Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, petitioner,v.UNITED STATES.No. 43.March 14, 1955Former decision, 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S.Ct. 864, 98 L.Ed. 1133; 348 U.S. 272, 75 S.Ct. 313.Facts and opinion, 120 F.Supp. 202; 128 Ct.Cl. 82.OpinionTee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 965, 75 S. Ct. 521, 99 L. Ed. 753 (1955)75 S.Ct. 313Supreme Court of the United StatesThe TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS, An Identifiable Group of Alaska Indians, Petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 43.Argued Nov. 12, 1954.Decided Feb. 7, 1955.Rehearing Denied March 14, 1955.See 348 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 521.Action by Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, an Alaskan clan, to recover compensation from United States for taking of timber on Indian-occupied lands. The Court of Claims,Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)United States Court of Claims.TEE-HIT-TON INDIANSv.UNITED STATES.No. 50385.April 6, 1954.Writ of Certiorari Granted June 7, 1954.See 74 S.Ct. 864.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1954), aff’d, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)120 F.Supp. 202United States Court of Claims.TEE-HIT-TON INDIANSv.UNITED STATES.No. 50385.April 6, 1954.Writ of Certiorari Granted June 7, 1954.See 74 S.Ct. 864.Suit by Tee-hit-ton Indians, a clan of American Indians in Alaska, on claim that a compensable interest in land belonging to them was taken when the United States agreed to sell to a pulp and paper company all merchantable timber on specified portion of land from which the clan had exploited by taking fish, game, berries and roots. The Court of Claims, Madden, J., on proceeding to determine certain issues only, held, inter alia, that the clan was an identifiable group of American Indians so that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction of the claim.Order in accordance with opinion.Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1954), aff’d, 348 U.S. 272, 75 S. Ct. 313, 99 L. Ed. 314 (1955)177 F.Supp. 452United States Court of Claims.TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKAv.UNITED STATES.No. 47900.Oct. 7, 1959.Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 177 F. Supp. 452 (Ct. Cl. 1959)389 F.2d 778United States Court of Claims.The TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKA and Harry Douglas et al., Intervenors,v.The UNITED STATES.No. 47900.Jan. 19, 1968.Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 389 F.2d 778 (Ct. Cl. 1968)82 S.Ct. 562Supreme Court of the United StatesORGANIZED WILLAGE OF KAKE, and Angoon Community Association, Appellants,v.William A. EGAN, Governor of Alaska.No. 3.Argued Dec. 13 and 14, 1961.Decided March 5, 1962.Organized Vill. of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S. Ct. 562, 7 L. Ed. 2d 573 (1962)1997 WL 634306 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief.STATE of Alaska, Petitioner,v.NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, et al., Respondents.No. 96-1577.October Term, 1997.Oct. 14, 1997.On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitBRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE KONIAG, INC., IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, ET AL.State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 1997 WL 634306 (U.S.) (U.S.Amicus.Brief,1997)420 F.2d 938United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,v.Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior; Boyd L. Rasmussen, Director,Bureau of Land Management; Burton L. Silcock, State Director for Alaska, Bureauof Land Management; and Robert C. Krumm, Manager, Fairbanks Land Office, Bureauof LandManagement, Appellants.STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,v.NATIVE VILLAGE OF NENANA, Appellant.Nos. 23603, 23597.Dec. 19, 1969.State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969)369 F.Supp. 1359United States District Court,District of Columbia.Charles EDWARDSEN, Jr., Individually and as Executive Director of the Arctic Slope Native Association, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and his successors and predecessors in Office, et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. 2014-71.April 19, 1973.Edwardsen v. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1973)72 F.3d 698United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants–Appellees.Katie JOHN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants–Appellants.Nos. 94–35480, 94–35481.Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1995.Opinion Filed April 20, 1995.Opinion Withdrawn Dec. 19, 1995.Decided Dec. 19, 1995.State of Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995), adhered to sub nom. John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2001)720 F.3d 1214United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.Katie JOHN; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana; State of Alaska, Plaintiffs,andAlaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors–Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell,* Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.Katie John; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana, Plaintiffs,Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,andState of Alaska, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.United States Of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.Katie John; Charles Erhart; Alaska Inter–Tribal Council; Native Village of Tanana, Plaintiffs–Appellants,andState of Alaska, Plaintiff,Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund; Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council; John Conrad; Michael Tinker, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,v.United States of America; Mike Johanns; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees,Alaska Federation of Natives, Defendant–Intervenor–Appellee.No. 09–36122, 09–36125, 09–36127.Argued and Submitted July 25, 2011.Filed July 5, 2013.John v. United States, 720 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2013)502 F.Supp.2d 64United States District Court,District of Columbia.AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 06–969 (RWR).Aug. 21, 2007.SynopsisAkiachak Native Cmty. v. Dep’t of Interior, 502 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2007)827 F.3d 100United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.Akiachak Native Community, et al., Appelleesv.United States Department of the Interior and Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, AppelleesState of Alaska, AppellantNo. 13-5360Argued March 4, 2016Decided July 1, 2016Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016)680 F.2d 122United States Court of Claims.INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF the ARCTIC SLOPEv.The UNITED STATES.No. 596-77.June 2, 1982.Inupiat Cmty. of Arctic Slope v. United States, 680 F.2d 122 (Ct. Cl. 1982)548 F.Supp. 182United States District Court, D. Alaska.The INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF the ARCTIC SLOPE, a federally-recognized Indian tribe; Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, a native village corporation, et al., Plaintiffs,v.The UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.No. A 81-19 Civil.Oct. 1, 1982.Inupiat Cmty. of Arctic Slope v. United States, 548 F. Supp. 182 (D. Alaska 1982), aff’d, 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984)470 F.Supp. 423United States District Court, District of Columbia.PEOPLE OF TOGIAK et al., Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. 77-0264.April 3, 1979.People of Togiak v. United States, 470 F. Supp. 423 (D.D.C. 1979)642 F.2d 589United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Intervenors.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard A. Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.Nos. 80-1148, 80-1150, 80-1151, 80-1164, 80-1169, 80-1184 and 80-1190 to 80-1192.Argued 15 May 1980.Decided 9 Oct. 1980.Rehearing Denied 19 Nov. 1980.N. Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980)642 F.2d 589United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors, Appellants.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al., Appellants,v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al.NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Co. et al., Intervenors.NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard A. Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK et al.v.Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Appellants,Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Intervenors.Nos. 80-1148, 80-1150, 80-1151, 80-1164, 80-1169, 80-1184 and 80-1190 to 80-1192.Argued 15 May 1980.Decided 9 Oct. 1980.Rehearing Denied 19 Nov. 1980.N. Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1980)18 U.S.C.A. § 1151§ 1151. Indian country definedCurrentnessExcept as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term “Indian country”, as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.CREDIT(S)18 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West)(a) Offenses other than marking offensesIt is unlawful for any person(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law;(B) any plant(i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates(I) the theft of plants;(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;16 U.S.C.A. § 3372 (West)PL 97–79, NOVEMBER 16, 1981, 95 Stat 1073UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS97th Congress – First SessionConvening January 5, 1981DATA SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (SEE SCOPE)Additions and Deletions are not identified in this document.PL 97–79 (S 736)NOVEMBER 16, 1981An Act to provide for the control of illegally taken fish and wildlife.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That this Act // USC 3401 // may be cited as the ” Lacey Act Amendments of 1981”.PL 97–79 (S 736), PL 97–79, NOVEMBER 16, 1981, 95 Stat 1073Effective: May 12, 200643 U.S.C.A. § 1613a§ 1613a. ANCSA amendmentCurrentnessAll land and interests in land in the State of Alaska conveyed by the Federal Government under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to a Native Corporation and reconveyed by that Native Corporation, or a successor in interest, in exchange for any other land or interest in land in the State of Alaska and located within the same region (as defined in section 9(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1608(a)),1 to a Native Corporation under an exchange or other conveyance, shall be deemed, notwithstanding the conveyance or exchange, to have been conveyed pursuant to that Act.CREDIT(S)(Pub.L. 109-221, Title I, § 102, May 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 337.)43 U.S.C.A. § 1613a (West)43 U.S.C.A. § 1601§ 1601. Congressional findings and declaration of policyCurrentnessCongress finds and declares that(a) there is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims;43 U.S.C.A. § 1601 (West)935 F.Supp.2d 195United States District Court,District of Columbia.AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Kenneth SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants,andThe State of Alaska, Intervenor.Civil Action No. 06–969 (RC).March 31, 2013.SynopsisAkiachak Native Cmty. v. Salazar, 935 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C.), on reconsideration in part sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. Jewell, 995 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), vacated sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and vacated sub nom. Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016)


“WordWrap 2017: Historical Reflections on the Law of the Land.” Created by Lisa Link for the Alaska Sesquicentennial Commemorative Exhibit, “Voices of Change: Perspectives on the Transfer of Alaska from Russia to the United States” at Sitka National Historical Park.