Alaska’s Legal Challenge to Tribal Gaming

By Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier and Kelsey Haake

The State of Alaska (the “State” or “Alaska”) is asking a D.C. federal judge to bar an Alaska Native tribe from operating a gaming hall in Anchorage while the State challenges federal authorization for the facility. The State argues that intervention is needed to preserve “the status quo that has existed in Alaska for more than 30 years.”¹

In its recent motion for a preliminary injunction, the State asserted that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) upset long-settled expectations last year when the agency’s then-Solicitor concluded that Alaska tribes have a “rebuttable presumption” of territorial jurisdiction on land issued under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906.

That finding paved the way for the Native Village of Eklutna (the Tribe) to open a gaming facility earlier this year. However, the State said the Solicitor’s opinion conflicts with a D.C. federal judge’s decision in 2021 rejecting the Tribe’s earlier bid to operate its gaming hall. Alaska wants the Court to enforce the 2021 ruling while their lawsuit continues.²

“This case is about jurisdiction over lands,” Cori Mills, Alaska’s deputy attorney general, said in a prepared statement. “We are asking a court to reaffirm what it has already said — the State maintains primary jurisdiction over Alaska Native Allotments. A solicitor’s opinion cannot convert them into Indian reservations.”

The injunction bid comes after Alaska sued the DOI and the Native Village of Eklutna in February, seeking to wipe out a series of agency decisions the State says upended its jurisdictional authority over Alaska lands.

In January, the Tribe opened a temporary facility for class II gaming — a designation that includes games like bingo and pull tabs. The Tribe’s president, Aaron Leggett, has stated that the permanent facility the Tribe intends to develop will “support over 400 new Alaska jobs and nearly $70 million in annual economic activity for our communities.” Leggett said he was “disheartened” by the State’s injunction bid.

At the same time as the State’s injunction efforts, the Tribe moved to transfer the litigation to Alaska federal court. The Tribe contends “Alaska is where the Eklutna allotment is located, Alaska is where the Tribe’s gaming operation is located, and Alaska is where the State alleges it is injured.”

According to the State’s motion for preliminary injunction, the DOI had long held that Alaska tribes lack territorial jurisdiction over Alaska Native Allotments. In essence, the parcels do not qualify as “Indian lands” eligible for gaming under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). In February 2024, then-DOI Solicitor Robert Anderson reversed course, issuing “his own opinion that announced Alaska tribes now have territorial jurisdiction over Alaska Native Allotments in most circumstances.”³

Following that February 2024 opinion, the Native Village of Eklutna sought authorization from the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), a federal regulatory agency established under the IGRA to assist in regulating gaming activities on Indian lands to ensure that tribal gaming is conducted fairly, honestly, and in compliance with IGRA and applicable regulations. The acting NIGC chair approved the Tribe’s gaming ordinance in July 2024, allowing them to conduct class II gaming.

In February 2025, the Trump administration placed DOI Solicitor opinions issued during the Biden administration on “suspension review,” according to a DOI memo attached to Alaska’s injunction bid.⁴ The memo claimed the DOI is reviewing those opinions and deciding whether they should be “reinstated, modified, or revoked.” Still, Alaska said the suspension review should not alter the D.C. Court’s review. Alaska held that “allowing one tribe to move forward based on unlawfully issued approvals hurts the public interest by allowing Interior to treat similarly situated Alaska tribes differently.”

This ongoing case has significant implications not only for Alaska’s 229 federally recognized tribes but also for the future of tribal economic development across the state.