Land into Federal Trust
For Alaska Tribes
Tribal Transportation Conference
September 2014
Prepared by Lisa Jaeger
Tribal Government Specialist
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks 1-800-478-6822
lisa.jaeger@tananachiefs.org
Placing tribal land in trust means that
the United States government holds
legal title to the land for the benefit,
use, and occupancy of a federally
recognized tribe. The U.S.
Government’s name is on the deed as
the owner of the property.
Implications….increased federal oversight but also
potential increased tribal jurisdiction
Indian country
Land Into Trust – Background

Prior to ANCSA there was a great deal of land in Alaska in
trust, some very large reservations and many
reserves…some 150 reservations and reserves

In 1971 ANCSA terminated all reservations in Alaska
except Metlakatla

In 1978 a legal opinion of a BIA solicitor stated that
through ANCSA, Congress had intended to permanently
remove all Native lands in Alaska from trust status

In 1980 the BIA created an ‘Alaska Exception’ for taking
land into trust in Alaska…BIA regulations prohibit taking
tribal land into trust.

In 2007, Akiachak Native Community v Kenneth
Salazar (Secretary of the Interior, Defendant and
the State of Alaska (intervener) 4 tribes filed a
lawsuit claiming that the ‘Alaska Exception’ was
discriminatory

In March 2013, the U.S. District Court of
Columbia issued a judgment in favor of the
tribes. ANCSA did not prohibit the Secretary
from taking land into trust and the ‘Alaska
Exception’ diminished the privileges and
immunities available to federally recognized
tribes. Both the Secretary of Interior and the
State of Alaska appealed this decision.

In November 2013, the Indian Law and Order
Commission report, A Roadmap for Making
Native America Safer, recommends taking land
into trust in Alaska to improve public safety
options.

In December 2013, the Secretarial Commission
on Indian Trust Administration and Reform
established by the Secretary of Interior
recommended allowing Alaska Native tribes to
have tribally owned fee simple land taken into
trust.
April 2014, Department of Interior puts
forth a proposed rule that would lift
the ‘Alaska Exception’ and allow the
Department of Interior to take Alaska
tribal fee land into trust. A hearing was
held in Anchorage in June, and the
comment period extended.

Carcieri (Rode Island Governor) v Salazar
(Secretary of Interior)
Carcieri v Salazar, Supreme Court 2009: The
Narragansett Tribe in Rhode Island was federally
recognized in 1983. The tribe purchased 31 acres
of land to be used for elderly tribal member
housing and asked for it to be taken into trust
under the Indian Reorganization Act. Rhode
Island opposed, sued, and ultimately the US
Supreme Court ruled that since the IRA says that
land can be taken into trust for tribes “now under
federal jurisdiction” that the Narragansett land
could not be taken into trust because they were
not recognized in 1934 when the IRA was
enacted.
‘Carcieri Fix’

S. 2188, legislation that would overturn the Supreme
Courts decision in Carcieri v Salazar. In front of Congress
now.

Broadens the tribes that the Secretary of Interior can take
lands into trust for to include any federally recognize tribe
(as opposed to only those recognized in 1934).

Opposed by the State of Alaska, Governor through the
Attorney General’s office who proposed the following
language:
• Section 5 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465) is
amended in the first sentence by striking “The
Secretary” and inserting “Except in Alaska, the
Secretary.”
If the rule is adopted and Congress doesn’t create
an ‘Alaska Exception’, the BIA would consider
taking land into trust on a case by case basis, but
would not be mandated to take it into trust.
The opportunity to take land into trust would be
opened.
Obstacles include the likely protest by the State of
Alaska on applications and ‘clouds’ on some titles.
Implications of land in trust
 Land
held in trust has great protection
from loss
 Tribes
have more authority/jurisdiction
over lands held in trust
 Land
held in trust would have more
federal oversight (i.e. permission to
develop, mortgage, or sell)
Lands held in fee simple title by the
tribes (tribe’s name is on the deed)
would be the most likely type of land
that could be taken into trust.
Alaska tribes have acquired land in fee
simple status in a variety of ways:

Large and small transfers from village
corporations to tribes

Transfers from city governments

Alaska Native Townsite lands where cities
did not form

Purchase and gift
Venetie
Arctic Village
1.8 million acres
Venetie land
held in fee-simple
title by the Tribe,
both surface and
subsurface. Transferred from
Two village corporations
In the 1970s.
Eagle
Alaska Native Townsite
Lots with ‘E’ owned by Tribe in
fee simple title.
Village removed in 2009 flood
Birch Creek
Checkerboard pattern
Of ANCSA settlement
Core township surface
(64,000 acres) owned in fee
simple by the Tribe
Also, the Village sits on an
Alaska Native Townsite
Grayling
Alaska Native
Townsite
Lots with ‘G’
transferred from
City to Tribe
Telida
Native Allotment
Purchased by Tribe
Most of the tribal Law and Order Commission Report
Recommendations for Alaska revolve around taking land into
trust to increase tribal jurisdiction over it

Congress should overturn the Venetie tax case decision by
amending ANCSA to provide that former reservations
lands acquired in fee by Alaska Native villages and other
lands transferred in fee to Native villages pursuant to
ANCSA are Indian country.

Congress and the President should amend the definition of
Indian country to clarify or affirm that Native allotments
and Native-owned town sites in Alaska are Indian country.

Congress should amend ANCSA to allow transfer of lands
from Regional Corporations to Tribal governments, to
allow transferred lands to be put into trust and defined as
Indian country in the criminal code, to allow tribes to put
tribally owned fee simple land into trust, and to channel
more resources directly to Alaska tribal governments for
the provision of governmental services in those
communities

Congress should repeal section 910 of the amended VAWA
legislation

Congress should affirm the inherent criminal jurisdiction of
Alaska Native Tribal governments over their members
within the external boundaries of their villages
If the path is opened for tribes to place land in trust,
each tribe would be affected differently depending
on the things such as the amount of land owned,
location, ownership of subsurface, and resources
on the land.

Each tribe should consider:
Would the land be better protected in trust?
How would jurisdiction and responsibilities of
the tribe change?
How would trust status effect economic
development?
Would trust land affect services?
How much federal oversight would there be and
how will it affect the tribe?
What would they have done?