State of Alaska Sues U.S. Government Over Native Gaming Decision

By Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier and Kelsey Haake

The State of Alaska (the State) has embarked on a significant legal journey, filing a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC).¹ This lawsuit challenges recent federal decisions that authorized the Native Village of Eklutna to conduct gaming on a Native Allotment in Alaska. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn what the State alleges are “unlawful decisions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and an injunction precluding the Tribe from engaging in any gaming activity on the Odola Allotment.”

This complaint follows the opening of the Chin’an Gaming Hall, which was introduced to the media just one day prior. The facility has already sparked controversy, with over 60 percent of its employees being Eklutna Tribal members and local community members. Eklutna Village President Aaron Leggett emphasized that the gaming hall represents a significant milestone for the tribe, providing economic opportunities and cultural revitalization efforts.

The legal battle centers on the Odola Allotment, an 8.05-acre parcel in Chugiak, Alaska, owned by members of the Native Village of Eklutna. For over three decades, the DOI maintained that Alaska Native tribes did not have territorial jurisdiction over Native Allotments, a position solidified in the 1993 Sansonetti Opinion. However, in 2024, the DOI reversed course under a new presidential administration, issuing the Anderson Opinion, which “asserted that Alaska tribes are presumed to have territorial jurisdiction over Alaska Native allotments.”

The State of Alaska asserts that this abrupt change in federal policy is legally flawed and contradicts established precedents and federal court rulings. Specifically, the State argues that the 2021 federal court decision in Native Village of Eklutna v. U.S. Department of the Interior upheld the Sansonetti Opinion, affirming that the Odola Allotment did not qualify as “Indian lands” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).² The State contends that the Anderson Opinion improperly overturns this precedent by introducing a new “rebuttable presumption” of tribal jurisdiction over Native Allotments.

Additionally, the State asserts that approving the Eklutna Gaming Ordinance and lease agreement for Class II gaming violates the IGRA, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It argues that the DOI’s actions conflict with ANCSA’s framework, which Congress enacted to resolve Alaska Native land claims without establishing a reservation system and to extinguish aboriginal title. Specifically, the State argues that “ANCSA set up a system where Alaska tribes would not have a land base over which they exercised territorial jurisdiction. Instead, Congress intended for the State to maintain primary jurisdiction over land owned by Alaska tribes, Alaska Natives, and Alaska Native Corporations” and that ANCSA does not suggest that “Alaska tribes have any connection, let alone jurisdiction, over an allotment granted to an individual allottee.” Finally, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants exceeded their authority and abused their discretion by attempting to alter the jurisdictional status quo in Alaska.

Alaska’s complaint outlines two primary causes of action. First, it alleges that federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously to reverse their longstanding legal position and approve gaming on the Odola Allotment. In simpler terms, Alaska is arguing that the federal government made a sudden and unjustified change in its stance on tribal gaming. Second, it argues that the DOI and the Native Village of Eklutna are barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating the jurisdictional issue, as the federal court already ruled against them in the 2021 case. This means that Alaska believes the federal court’s decision in 2021 should prevent the federal government and the Eklutna tribe from reopening the same legal issue.

The State is asking the court to:

1. Declare the federal decisions unlawful and vacate the approvals for gaming.

2. Enjoin the DOI and NIGC from approving gaming ordinances or leases on Native Allotments in Alaska.

3. Reinstate the legal precedent established in Native Village of Eklutna v. U.S. Department of the Interior.³

The lawsuit has significant implications for tribal gaming in Alaska and beyond. If the State prevails, it could reinforce the historical interpretation that Alaska tribes lack territorial jurisdiction over individual Native Allotments. This could have a profound impact on tribal sovereignty. If the federal government and the Native Village of Eklutna succeed, it could open the door for expanded tribal gaming operations in the State, fundamentally shifting the legal landscape of tribal sovereignty in Alaska.

With billions of dollars in economic development at stake, tribal governments, state officials, and gaming industry stakeholders nationwide will closely watch the outcome of this lawsuit. The decision could set a significant precedent for tribal gaming operations, potentially influencing future gaming ventures and regulatory decisions.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to set a briefing schedule in the coming weeks, with a decision likely to have far-reaching consequences for Native land jurisdiction and tribal gaming in Alaska.