Tag: Governor mike dunleavy

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Alaskans are receiving $1,000 cheques; Here’s why

A sign advertising the cashing of Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, or PFD, checks hangs outside a business in Anchorage, Alaska, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Thiessen)

AP- The truck that arrived ahead of schedule at Allyssa Canoy’s home in Fairbanks brought enough heating fuel for the frigid winter months ahead — and a surprise bill for $2,600.

Canoy and her two sons have checks arriving that will cover that expense and leave some money for the boys, too. Starting Thursday, Alaska plans to begin distributing to residents their annual dividend derived from the state’s $83 billion oil wealth fund, a sort of bonus that Alaskans get for living in the state.

For some, it’s extra spending money for a new set of tires or a vacation to a sunnier clime during the long, dark winter. For others, it’s a vital supplement in a state where the cost for internet service, gas and groceries can be sky-high.

Here’s what to know about the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend:

This year’s payout is one of the lowest in 20 years

Alaskans are getting $1,000 per person — the lowest amount since 2020, when they each received $992. The payout has been below $1,000 only two other times since 2006.

There used to be a formula for calculating the amount, tied to the fund’s market performance. But lawmakers widely consider that formula unaffordable and within the last decade have abandoned it.

Politicians now set the amount. It’s often one of the last items settled during sensitive budget negotiations. Lawmakers must weigh the check’s size against other programs and public needs, including education, and in 2018 began using earnings from the fund — long used to pay dividends — to also help balance the budget.

This year, $1,000 is what lawmakers argued they could afford while also backing an increase in K-12 funding and trying to limit draws from savings.

Had the old formula been followed, residents would be getting about $3,800 each.

The Alaska Permanent Fund is nearly 50 years old

Voters created the fund in 1976, during the heady, early years of oil in the state. The goal was to save some of Alaska’s mineral wealth. The fund has grown through investments, and while the state constitution protects the fund’s principal, its earnings can be spent.

Dividends have been paid since 1982. Proponents saw them as a way to ensure Alaskans maintained a vested interest in the Alaska Permanent Fund.

More than 600,000 of Alaska’s roughly 740,000 residents are set to receive this year’s check. To qualify, one must meet residency and other requirements.

Three times, including last year, Alaskans received an energy relief payment along with their dividends, according to the state.

Plenty of ways to use the money

For some Alaskans, the check is a nice extra. Some put it into college funds or savings accounts or donate to charities. Others rely on it for necessities, such as heating oil, winter tires or snowmachines, which are critical modes of transportation in rural villages where residents rely on hunting or trapping.

Canoy, a single mom of two, is selling her home and downsizing. She had planned to fill her home’s fuel tank as a gift to the new buyers at closing, but the fuel truck came early while she was away. So instead of putting the $3,000 her family is receiving toward other projects, as she’d hoped, she’s using it to pay that bill. She plans to let her sons spend the remaining $400.

Canoy said she lives comfortably and sees the dividend as a blessing. Still, she wishes lawmakers would find a better way to set the amounts — “at least to just give Alaskans maybe a little peace of mind that, yeah, we’re actually doing everything that we can to make sure that you guys get the most out of the permanent fund dividend.”

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local Music News Feeds Sitka Local

Murkowski, Sullivan join 10 US senators urging reversal of funding cuts for Native students

By: Corinne Smith, Alaska Beacon

Alaska Republican U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (Alaska Beacon file photos)

Alaska Republican U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan signed on to a letter with 10 other U.S. senators, calling on the U.S. Department of Education to reverse the decision to cut millions in congressionally approved grant funding for Native American-serving colleges and universities nationwide. 

The letter, addressed to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, argues that an estimated $36.1 million in grant funding already allocated under the Higher Education Act should be distributed to colleges and universities serving Native students nationwide. 

Senators wrote the funds are already authorized and appropriated by Congress and should go toward its intended colleges and universities nationwide, “including dollars that are part of ongoing grants – projects, programs, and services that are already in motion and that are serving currently enrolled students,” they said. 

“These institutions are statutorily authorized to receive federal support from the Department to strengthen their capacity to serve American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students, and rely on this federal support to adequately serve enrolled students,” they said. 

“The Department’s decision to reprogram this critical source of funding for these colleges jeopardizes not just their continued existence, but also undermines the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations to provide Native students an education,” they wrote.

Earlier this month, Sec. McMahon announced that $350 million in congressionally approved funding for minority-serving institutions, a federal grant category that includes funding for Black, Hispanic, Asian-American and Native American students, would be reallocated. McMahon cited “racial quotas” as discriminatory and unconstitutional. “To further our commitment to ending discrimination in all forms across federally supported programs, the Department will no longer award Minority-Serving Institution grants that discriminate by restricting eligibility to institutions that meet government-mandated racial quotas,” McMahon said. 

The group of three Republican and nine Democratic senators rejected the claims, saying “to be clear, these grants do not impose racial quotas or restrict admissions based on race, but support institutions that deliver on the federal trust responsibility to provide an education for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians because of their unique legal status and political relationship with the United States.”

In Alaska, University of Alaska officials say they are still reviewing the extent of the funding freeze, but University of Alaska Fairbanks officials report the grant elimination totals at least $8.8 million across campuses. 

Senators argued that the funding cut contradicts the Trump administration’s expressed focus on career and technical education, and said the funds boost capacity for institutions serving not only Native students, but wider student populations. 

“As such, we again urge you to reverse the decision,” the senators wrote, “to release these funds, as appropriated by Congress, so that the work these schools do to support the trust responsibility, as well as the next generation of leaders as part of our nation’s bright future, can continue.

The letter was signed by Murkowski, as the chair of the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and committee co-chair U.S. Sen. Brian Shatz, D-Hawaii; along with Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska; Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina; Ben Ray Luján, D-New Mexico; Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona; John Hickenlooper, D-Colorado; Michael Bennett, D-Colorado; Mark Kelly, D-Arizona; Tina Smith, D-Minnesota; and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota. 

A spokesperson for Murkowski said as of Wednesday they have not had a response from the department

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Murkowski: Help for health care, public broadcasting, is needed in shutdown-averting budget plan

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, speaks at an Aug. 4, 2025, news conference in her Anchorage office. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

Alaska’s three members of Congress differed on a series of votes Friday intended to keep the federal government funded past the end of the month, and avert a government shutdown.

Alaska’s sole U.S. House Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, voted in favor of a seven-week budget extension, but that measure died in the U.S. Senate when lawmakers were unable to garner the 60 votes needed to pass the U.S. House measure or an alternative proposed by Democratic members of the Senate.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, was absent from both votes. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted against both proposals.

“I voted against both measures as I felt that they were not serious (enough) to meet the situation that we are currently in today,” she said in a recording provided by her office.

The Republican-controlled House passed its stopgap funding bill 217-212, with one Democrat voting for it and two Republicans voting against it.

“The House did its job,” Begich said in a written statement afterward. “We passed a responsible, short-term continuing resolution to keep the government open and give Congress time to complete the appropriations process. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats chose obstruction over solutions, blocking this clean measure.”

Murkowski and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, voted against the House-passed plan, while Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, voted for it. Eight senators did not vote, and the measure died 44-48.

The Democratic counterproposal failed 47-45.

Murkowski said that counterproposal included “a Christmas list” of Democratic ideas, including items that would have reversed big parts of the Republican “Big Beautiful Bill Act” from earlier this year, which contained core tax cuts and spending policies of Trump’s second presidential term. Murkowski and Sullivan voted for that bill, which was later signed into law.

On the other side of the coin, Murkowski said the Republican plan failed to include an extension of subsidies for health care plans passed through the federal insurance marketplace, something that is critical for Alaskans. It also didn’t include additional funding for public broadcasting or opposition to President Donald Trump’s unilateral budget clawbacks, known as recissions.

“I’m going to be busy in the next 10 days, trying to build a level of consensus that keeps the government open, because there is no side — no Republican, no Democrat, the White House — nobody wins when there is a government shutdown,” she said.

“It’s possible that my proposal will equally annoy both sides, but maybe, just maybe, it will get the conversation going in a way that advances serious discussion and positive outcomes,” Murkowski said.

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Alaska’s 2025 Permanent Fund dividend will be $1,000 and arrives starting Oct. 2

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

 People line up outside of the downtown Anchorage Permanent Fund Dividend office on March 31, 2023, the last day to submit applications. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

This year’s Permanent Fund dividend will be $1,000, an amount set by the Alaska Legislature in House Bill 53, the state’s annual operating budget bill, earlier this year.

Ordinarily, lawmakers allocate an amount of money for the dividend, which makes individual payments dependent upon the number of recipients. 

The Alaska Department of Revenue then announces the final amount in September.

This year, lawmakers set a specific dividend amount, which turned the Alaska Department of Revenue’s fall announcement, released Friday, into an anticlimax.

Alaskans whose PFD applications were filed electronically, whose applications were approved as of Sept. 18, and who requested direct deposit, will begin to receive their payments Oct. 2. 

Those whose applications are approved by Oct. 13 will receive their dividends starting Oct. 23.

That includes people who applied for the dividend on paper forms or requested paper checks.

Paying a $1,000 dividend to all recipients was expected to cost $685.3 million, making it one of the largest single expenses in Alaska’s annual state budget.

Only the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development ($1.4 billion) and the Alaska Department of Health ($1.1 billion) are more expensive.

The 2026 dividend is expected to be larger, if lawmakers agree to spend from the state’s Constitutional Budget Reserve. 

Since 2020, lawmakers have approved larger dividends in election years than in non-election years.

The Alaska Permanent Fund, an $83 billion state trust fund, is the largest source of general-purpose revenue for state services, paying for between 50-60% of state operations in an ordinary year. Oil revenue, by comparison, supplies only about a third of state revenue. 

Since 1982, a portion of the fund has been paid out to Alaskans in an annual dividend. The payment was set by formula until 2016, when lawmakers — facing severe budget shortfalls — began setting it by fiat. The formula remains in state law, but legislators are not obliged to follow it.

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

No public comment or hearings on environmental review of oil leasing in Alaska’s Cook Inlet

By: Yereth Rosen, Alaska Beacon

 Cook Inlet waves roll onto the beach at Kenai on Aug. 14, 2018. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement to address legal deficiencies in a 2022 lease sale. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

Federal regulators will accept no public comments on a pending environmental study of oil leasing in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, a U.S. Department of the Interior agency announced through a Federal Register notice published Thursday.

There will be no public comment period and no public hearing on a draft supplemental environmental impact statement for a Cook Inlet lease sale that was held in 2022 but found to be legally flawed, said U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which manages oil and gas development in federal offshore areas.

The rejection of public comments is in accordance with Trump administration changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, the 55-year-old law that guides federal decisions about activities that may have environmental impacts. The changes are aimed at speeding up environmental reviews and developing infrastructure projects.

BOEM is following the administration’s updated NEPA regulations and a new department handbook on the law, which went into effect on July 3, said Elizabeth Pearce, a U.S. Department of the Interior senior public affairs specialist.

“This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is narrowly focused on addressing the court’s concerns, without a separate public-comment round – streamlining what is typically a protracted, multi-year process down to a few months.” Pearce said by email on Thursday.

Although no public comments will be accepted, the public will be able to read the new environmental impact statement when it is finished, Pearce added. “The completed Supplemental EIS will be posted online so Alaskans and other stakeholders can see exactly how we addressed the court’s limited concerns,” she said.

The Cook Inlet environmental study stems from a federal lease sale that was held on Dec. 30, 2022. It drew only one bid.

Earlier in the year, the Biden administration had planned to cancel the sale because of lack of industry interest. But at the urging of former Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the Inflation Reduction Act that narrowly passed Congress that year included a mandate for the sale to take place. Hilcorp Inc., the dominant oil and gas operator in Cook Inlet, submitted the only bid.

In response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups days before the lease sale was held, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled in 2024 that the lease sale had been held without adequate study of impacts to endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales. Her ruling put the lease sale results on hold, and she ordered BOEM to conduct a new review addressing impacts to the belugas.

BOEM’s announcement about the lack of public comment opportunities was blasted by environmental plaintiffs in the case.

“BOEM’s decision to exclude the public from its supplemental environmental statement is unacceptable. Public participation is not a box to check — it is the heart of NEPA,” Loren Barrett, co-executive director the water conservation non-profit Cook Inletkeeper, said in an emailed statement.

BOEM’s earlier lapses concerning Cook Inlet belugas were “not minor oversights; they are serious errors that must be corrected with rigor and transparency and a proper review that allows the time for public input,” Barrett added.

Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, also cited risks to the endangered beluga population, which is estimated to number a little over 300.

“This secrecy around exploiting public waters for fossil fuels is completely unacceptable. It would only take one oil spill to devastate Cook Inlet and its beluga whales, which is why the law requires transparency for these dangerous sales,” Monsell said in a statement. “The court found that federal officials failed to look at several important factors that could harm endangered belugas, including vessel noise. If the agency hides its analysis, we won’t know whether these critical issues have been addressed to better protect the belugas.” 

Hilcorp currently holds eight federal leases in Cook Inlet, including the sole lease acquired in the disputed 2022 sale. The company relinquished seven other federal leases in Cook Inlet. The BOEM website does not list any Hilcorp plans for exploring its remaining leases in the inlet.

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Fair-courts group argues that Dunleavy’s appointment to judge-picking board is unconstitutional

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

A copy of the Alaska Constitution is seen on Thursday, July 28, 2022. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)

In Anchorage Superior Court on Wednesday, attorneys for the state of Alaska defended Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s decision to name a former attorney to a public seat on Alaska’s judge-picking board, saying the choice was within the governor’s powers under the Alaska Constitution.

The governor’s choice of John W. Wood has been challenged by lawsuits filed by Juneau resident James Forrer and Alaskans for Fair Courts, a group devoted to the defense of the court system as an independent, apolitical branch of government.

They argue that if Wood’s appointment stands, it would give attorneys four of the six seats on the Alaska Judicial Council, the state board that accepts applications for judicial vacancies, selects nominees and forwards them to the governor for final selection.

Under the Alaska Constitution, the council consists of three attorneys picked by the Alaska Bar Association and three non-lawyer members of the public appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. In ties, the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court may cast a seventh vote.

The state contends that Wood is no longer an attorney and that he was a valid pick for an open seat. Both sides have asked for summary judgment, allowing Judge Yvonne Lamoureux to decide the case short of trial.

Wood’s appointment has been challenged on three main points. First, was the governor’s choice a valid recess appointment? Second, is Wood an attorney? Third, was he employed by the state at the time of the appointment?

Dunleavy appointed Wood in a letter dated May 29, filling a position that had been vacant since March, when a prior appointment expired. That was after the Legislature had adjourned for the year.

Under the Alaska Constitution and state law, a governor may fill vacant positions on boards and commissions when the Legislature is out of session, but the appointee will be subject to confirmation during the next regular legislative session.

Attorney James Reeves, arguing on behalf of Alaskans for Fair Courts, said his group contends that because a position on the Judicial Council became vacant during the legislative session, Wood may not begin serving until a confirmation vote takes place.

That contradicts existing practice, and Alaska Department of Law attorney Claire C. Keneally said in court on Wednesday that “it’s also not supported by the history of the (Alaska) Constitution” or the clause of the constitution that deals with appointments that take place when the Legislature is out of session.

“This is not a new or novel practice,” Keneally said of Dunleavy’s decision to not fill a March vacancy until May.

In 2015, then-Gov. Bill Walker filled a public seat on the Alaska Judicial Council in October; that seat had also been vacant since March, when the Legislature was in session.

Because of that timing issue, Keneally argued both in court and in writing, the case should be dismissed. Other arguments would be ripe for discussion only if the Legislature approves Wood’s appointment.

Wood was granted a law license in 1972, but it was suspended in 2000 because of a failure to pay dues to the Alaska Bar Association. Under a sworn affidavit, Wood said he has not practiced law since 2000 and has no intention of practicing law.

But in court on Wednesday, Reeves with Alaskans for Fair Courts said, “the Constitutional Convention history, which both sides have cited, indicates that the framers who discussed this understood the word non-attorney to mean layman or lay member. Is a lawyer who chooses not to practice law a layman?”

Reeves and attorney Joseph Geldhof, who was representing James Forrer in a separate but combined lawsuit also challenging Wood’s appointment, argued that because Wood held a state consulting contract at the time of his appointment, he was ineligible to serve on the Judicial Council.

The contract calls for Wood to advise the Alaska Department of Law on labor relations matters and to provide advice to the governor’s office when needed.

The Alaska Constitution states that no member of the Judicial Council may hold “any other office or position of profit under the United States or the state.”

But Keneally noted that the Alaska Supreme Court has previously interpreted that phrase to mean “salaried, non-temporary employment” with the state, and that other members of the Alaska Judicial Council, including some current members, have also held state contracts while serving on the council. 

Lamoureux, who heard Wednesday’s arguments, said she intends to issue a written order within 30 days, the timeline requested by both sides of the case in order to allow a speedy appeal.  

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Former Alaska attorney general Treg Taylor is 11th candidate to announce run for governor in 2026

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor speaks at a news conference on Thursday, Dec. 15, 2022, at the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks / Alaska Beacon)

Treg Taylor, the former Alaska attorney general, is running for governor, he announced Wednesday morning.

“I have a four-and-a-half-year proven record as the attorney general of fighting crime, fighting Biden, and fighting for Alaska,” he said by phone.

In a campaign video and written statement, Taylor promoted himself as a “fearless conservative” who is the best successor to incumbent Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who is term-limited and unable to run for another four years in office.

Taylor is the 10th Republican and 11th candidate overall to enter the 2026 Alaska governor’s race. 

The lone non-Republican in the race is former state Sen. Tom Begich, an Anchorage Democrat. 

The other Republicans are Anchorage business owner Bernadette Wilson; former state Sen. Click Bishop of Fairbanks; former Alaska Revenue Commissioner Adam Crum; current state Sen. Shelley Hughes of Palmer, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom of Eagle River; Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries; podiatrist Matt Heilala of Anchorage; former teacher James William Parkin IV of Angoon; and Bruce Walden of Palmer.

“That is a ridiculous number of people in the race,” Taylor said when asked how he distinguishes himself from the other Republicans. “My answer is that I am the only candidate that has a proven record of fighting on behalf of Alaska. When I was the attorney general for four and a half years, I fought crime, I fought Biden, I fought for Alaska’s economic future. I’ve been heavily involved with the Trump administration. I helped draft Trump’s first day Executive Order unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential. And I’ve worked hard with the Trump administration, with (Department of the Interior), (Department of Justice), to see fulfillment of that executive order, which is going to push Alaska’s economic future.”

Asked about his campaign plans, Taylor said, “over the next few months, I’ll be hard at work, visiting with groups, visiting with individuals, working up support, fundraising. Obviously, I think the biggest tell in this race is going to be when everybody divulges their fundraising and our goal is to be at the top of that list, and I think we’ve got a good plan for getting there.”

Taylor, a longtime attorney with a degree from the Brigham Young University law school, worked in private practice and for Arctic Slope Regional Corp. before joining the Alaska Department of Law in 2018. He was head of the department’s civil division in 2021 when Dunleavy picked him as attorney general following the resignations of two other men amid sexual misconduct scandals.

Taylor, who has never held publicly elected office before, ran unsuccessfully for the Anchorage School Board in 2011 and for that city’s Assembly in 2016.

Taylor’s entry into the governor’s race marks an unusually early start for an Alaska campaign. Eight years ago, when now-Gov. Dunleavy launched his campaign in July 2017, he was the first high-profile candidate to challenge then-Gov. Bill Walker. This time around, three candidates had entered the race before June. 

While the race is unusually crowded, additional candidates are still possible. Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has not ruled out a campaign, and a run by former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, is also possible.

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

In letter to the Legislature, Alaska Gov. Dunleavy invites lawsuit over new Ag Department

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

 Gov. Mike Dunleavy discusses proposed education legislation at a news conference on Jan. 31, 2025. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)

NOTN- Alaska’s governor will not withdraw an executive order proposing to create a new state Department of Agriculture, he said in a letter sent Monday to the leaders of the state House and Senate.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s letter comes days after a joint House-Senate panel voted to spend up to $100,000 on a lawsuit against the governor if he goes ahead with his proposal to create the department unilaterally.

Alaska is one of only two states without a cabinet-level state Department of Agriculture, and legislators have spoken favorably about the idea of creating one, but a majority of the House and Senate want to authorize that new department through law, not by the governor’s executive order.

In March, the Legislature voted 32-28 to reject an administrative order that would have created the Department of Agriculture by splitting off part of the Department of Natural Resources, the agency that currently oversees agriculture.

Shortly before the vote, lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced new legislation to create the department. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill advanced to a final vote, and either could be taken up during the next regular legislative session, which begins in January.  

When Dunleavy called lawmakers into special session in August, he reissued the executive order, but the leaders of the state House and Senate declined to accept the order as valid, saying that the Alaska Constitution does not grant the governor the power to issue an order during a special session.

Lawmakers also say they believe that it isn’t legal to reintroduce a previously rejected order.

“There clearly exists a disagreement between the executive and legislative branch as to the governor’s ability to introduce an executive order in a special session,” the governor wrote in Monday’s letter. “When such a dispute exists, it is appropriate to seek clarification from the courts.”

The governor’s letter notes that lawmakers could have met during the special session to vote down his executive order. Legislators have previously said they did not wish to do so, because taking the vote would have been the equivalent of acknowledging that the governor has the power to issue an executive order during a special session.

Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, is chair of the Legislative Council, the joint House-Senate committee that authorized the lawsuit against the governor.

By phone on Tuesday, she said she isn’t sure when the suit will be filed, but she expects it to move quickly.

The executive branch is preparing to launch the new department by Jan. 1, and legislators want to stop it before then.

“We have two prime legal issues that we think need to be addressed by a court, because the executive branch is interpreting them completely different,” she said.

Hannan said she expects that once a trial judge decides the issue, the losing party in the case will rapidly appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court for a final determination.

Regardless of who wins the case, Hannan said the state may still end up with a Department of Agriculture by June because legislators are advancing bills that would create the department.

“The 34th Legislature still may create a Department of Agriculture, but the executive order action of creating that and attempting to do it in a special session and after an executive order has been rejected, those are the legal questions that we need addressed,” she said.

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Dunleavy administration asks US Supreme Court to decide the future of subsistence fishing in Alaska

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

The Kuskokwim River is seen in this image captured by scientists working on NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, or ABoVE, which measured the elevation of rivers and lakes in Alaska and Canada to study how thawing permafrost affects hydrology. (Photo by Peter Griffith/NASA)

The state of Alaska is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether rural Alaskans should continue to get preferential fishing rights on most rivers and lakes within federal parks, preserves and reserves.

On Monday, the Alaska Department of Law asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a ruling from a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the state’s existing two-tiered subsistence fishing system last month. 

State attorneys have argued unsuccessfully since 2021 that federal law, as interpreted by recent rulings from the Supreme Court, means the state, not the federal government, has the power to regulate fishing in navigable waters on federal land.

A federal law, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, requires that rural Alaskans be given preferential treatment when hunting and fishing are regulated in Alaska. Simultaneously, the Alaska Constitution forbids that kind of preference.

For decades, the result has been a two-tiered system under which the federal government regulates hunting and fishing on federal land and water, and the state regulates it everywhere else.

Under the state framework, someone from Anchorage would have the same fishing rights on the Kuskokwim River as someone who lives a mile away. Under the current system, the local resident gets priority in parts of the river within federal land.

In 2021, a regulatory dispute on the Kuskokwim River during a salmon shortage resulted in the federal government filing a lawsuit against the state. The Alaska Federation of Natives, Association of Village Council Presidents and other Native groups from across the state joined the lawsuit on the side of the federal government. 

In 2024, a U.S. District Court judge in Alaska ruled in favor of the federal government, but the state appealed that decision. Last month, three judges from the 9th Circuit again ruled in favor of the federal government. Rather than appeal the issue to the full 9th Circuit, the state is going directly to the Supreme Court.

The state’s filing on Monday was formally known as a “cert petition,” which asks the court to take up the case.

The court takes only about 1% of the cases it receives, though the acceptance rate is higher (about 5%) if the large number of cases involving prisoners representing themselves in court are excluded.

In a written statement announcing the filing, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Attorney General designee Stephen Cox said the state believes that federal law gives Alaska control of its navigable waters when it comes to fishing.

“Alaska is asking the Supreme Court to hold fast to the text, because fidelity to the law as written is the foundation of the rule of law,” Cox said in his statement.

Doug Vincent-Lang, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said he believes the 9th Circuit decision “deepens a fractured system that undermines conservation, creates confusion, and threatens equitable access for all Alaskans. Salmon don’t recognize federal and state boundaries — our management shouldn’t either. We remain committed to sustainable management and will continue fighting for a system that works for every Alaskan. The Court should decide this case and reverse the Ninth Circuit.”

Attorneys representing Alaska Native groups said on Monday that they expected an appeal to the Supreme Court, even if they didn’t know the exact timing.

Nathaniel Amdur-Clark, who has represented the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission in the lawsuit to date, said by text message on Monday that his clients “are disappointed, but not surprised, to see the state’s cert petition. It is just a continuation of the state’s push to undermine subsistence protections for Alaska Natives and rural Alaskans.”

The Supreme Court does not have a set timeline for considering the state’s petition, which will be taken up in a closed-door judicial conference after both sides of the argument file written briefs on the issue.

Categories
Featured Juneau News Juneau Local Ketchikan Local News Feeds Sitka Local

Alaska lawmakers prepare to file suit against Gov. Dunleavy over executive order

The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau. (Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau. (Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau. (Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau. (Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)

A panel of state lawmakers voted 9-2 on Wednesday to approve spending up to $100,000 on a lawsuit against Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

The lawsuit, if filed, would challenge the governor’s decision to press ahead with plans to create a cabinet-level Alaska Department of Agriculture via executive order.

The governor issued an executive order in January, but lawmakers rejected it in a 32-28 vote in March, saying they preferred to create it through legislation instead. Creating the department through legislation, legislative leaders said, would allow lawmakers to debate and structure the department how they wish, instead of relying on the governor’s plans alone.

Dunleavy disagrees with that approach and in August filed a new executive order during a 30-day special session.

The leaders of the House and Senate refused to accept the filing, saying that it was not within the governor’s power to issue an executive order during a special session, or to reintroduce an already-rejected order.

The governor’s office has said that lawmakers’ failure to vote down the new order means that it will take effect and allow the executive branch to create the cabinet-level department at the start of 2026.

Why does the Legislature’s failure to vote on the executive order matter?

Article III, section 23 of the Alaska Constitution says that executive orders automatically take effect “unless disapproved by resolution concurred in by a majority of the members in joint session.”

The question that could be decided in court is whether lawmakers need to take that vote if an order is issued during a special session. Is issuing an order in a special session even legal? And does it matter if the order is identical to one that’s already been issued and voted upon?

Under Article III, section 23 of the Alaska Constitution, the “legislature shall have sixty days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration, to disapprove” executive orders that would make a change to the functions of the executive branch.

For almost two hours on Wednesday, members of the joint House-Senate Legislative Council — a committee that makes decisions for the Legislature when it is out of session — heard about the dispute behind closed doors, then debated it briefly in open session before voting.

“It’s a disagreement between the Legislature and the governor about whether or not the governor has the authority under the Alaska Constitution to introduce an executive order during a special session,” said Emily Nauman, director of Legislative Legal Services, the legal department for Alaska’s legislative branch.

Because the House and Senate’s presiding officers returned the order to the governor without taking action, “the governor is asserting that he will give effect to the executive order because it was not specifically rejected or disapproved by the legislature, thus causing a conflict in the interpretation of the Constitution between the Legislature and executive branch.”

Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, voted in favor of authorizing the Legislature to prepare and, if necessary, file a pre-emptive lawsuit to keep the governor from enacting the executive order.

“It’s just a question, to me, of, we said, ‘No. Don’t you understand what no means?’”

Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, also voted in favor of moving forward with a lawsuit. He said that while there is still time for the governor to back away from his position, “I really see it as our prerogative to protect ourselves procedurally, and for us to do that, I believe we need to file litigation.”

The two votes against Wednesday’s proposal came from Reps. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, and Mike Prax, R-North Pole.

Prax said he feels as if it could set a precedent that could allow lawmakers to disapprove of a future governor’s actions in a “more urgent” situation by simply not taking action.

“We would establish a precedent that the Legislature can do something by doing nothing, and that just does not seem like a very good practice to have established for any organization,” Prax said.

Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, said he doesn’t think that’s a correct interpretation of the lawsuit.

“With great respect to Representative Prax, no one is asserting here that the Legislature may act by inaction. What is before us is the question of whether the second shot at an executive order came in a way that the Constitution allows. I am convinced it did not.”

Kopp said he believes the governor may be prepared to change course on his executive action, and he’s reluctant to approve a lawsuit unless the governor attempts to take action and actually create the department.

“I would like to see us not initiate this until there’s some overt action by the administration that clearly indicates their intent to move unilaterally on this issue outside of the legislative process,” he said.

As of Friday, there was no estimate as to when a lawsuit might be filed.

Under the Alaska Constitution, the executive branch may not sue the legislative branch. Lawsuits by the Legislature against the governor are rare; this would be the fourth against Dunleavy during his two terms in office beginning in 2018. 

In 2019, lawmakers sued the governor over a school funding issue. The governor won that case in the Alaska Supreme Court. The following year, legislators sued Dunleavy over their failure to consider some of his appointees during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. The Alaska Supreme Court again ruled in Dunleavy’s favor.

In 2022, lawmakers filed a ‘friendly’ lawsuit against the governor in a dispute over the proper handling of oil and gas tax settlements. That dispute, which dates to the administration of Gov. Bill Walker, has yet to be decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.

News of the North
Podcasts
Stations
Cruise Schedule
Weather
Flood Watch
Best of  Juneau

Opinion & Request

Capital Chat
Problem Corner
Community Matters
Artist Submissions