Tribal Lands in the 49th State: Who Has Jurisdiction?

By Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier and Caitlin Vanderkarr

In the vast majority of U.S. States, the federal government may hold designated reservation lands in trust for tribes. However, Alaska presents a challenge to legal interpretation of gaming rights and jurisdiction.

IGRA & IRA in the Lower 48

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) — the foundational authority regulating gaming on “Indian lands,” tribal reservations held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a tribe — prevents gaming on “after-acquired” lands (after October 17, 1988) except in narrow circumstances.¹ The restored lands exception — Indian tribal lands restored to Federal recognition — provides one pathway to gaming.²

A federally recognized tribe may request that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) take land into trust pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).³ Subsequently, the tribe may request IGRA’s “after-acquired” lands exception be applied to such land in order to permit gaming thereupon. The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Office of the Solicitor (Solicitor) issued advisory opinions regarding gaming eligibility on after-acquired trust lands, which led to the disputes in Alaska.⁴

ANCSA

In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) created a tribal corporate structure for land ownership in Alaska in lieu of reservation lands. Pursuant to ANCSA, over a dozen regional Alaskan tribal corporations were formed, each of which selected federal lands within specific “legally defined regions” through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).⁵

These tribal corporations agreed to settle all of their “aboriginal claims” and subject their lands to corporate regulation by the State of Alaska in exchange for 45.5 million acres of land and nearly One Billion dollars ($1B) in payments.⁶ One tribe — the Metlakatla Indian Community — elected not to participate in the settlement, thus retaining its federal Indian reservation and Indian lands.⁷

ANCSA, IGRA, & IRA

ANCSA’s extinguishment of tribal land claims has led to litigation over the past several decades regarding tribal gaming rights in Alaska. This results from IGRA restricting gaming to “Indian lands” (reservation lands) and IRA’s process for taking land into trust, which do not fit neatly into ANCSA’s structure. Recent debate centers on whether DOI can “restore” Indian lands to an Alaskan tribe who entered into an ANCSA settlement and who now wishes to conduct gaming.

Certain court opinions have struck down DOI decisions as to the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (Tlingit & Haida)⁸ and the Native Village of Eklutna (Eklutna),⁹ as well as the State of Alaska’s requested injunction against Eklutna’s gaming facility.¹⁰

At its core, the litigation centers on jurisdiction. The State of Alaska asserts DOI does not have jurisdiction to “restore Indian lands” to an Alaskan tribe who entered into an ANCSA settlement.¹¹ The State contends ANCSA vested Alaska with “primary” jurisdiction over Alaskan Native Allotments, so the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and DOI do not have jurisdiction to “convert” such lands “into Indian reservations” through a Solicitor’s opinion.¹²

DOI Solicitor Opinions

In February 2024, DOI Solicitor Robert Anderson issued an opinion that “Alaska tribes now have territorial jurisdiction over Alaska Native Allotments” (Anderson Opinion), which contradicted prior opinions.¹³ One year later, the new administration suspended prior DOI Solicitor opinions pending review,¹⁴ with DOI Deputy Secretary Kate MacGregor eventually overruling the Anderson Opinion on September 25, 2025.¹⁵

MacGregor’s opinion suggests most Alaskan tribes do not possess federal trust lands upon which to conduct gaming pursuant to IGRA, unlike tribes in other U.S. States. Tribes claim that Alaska’s jurisdiction over lands occupied by tribes makes it “much more difficult” for a tribe to conduct gaming activities.¹⁶

Reactions and Next Steps

Eklutna is “reviewing” MacGregor’s opinion, while gaming continues at its facility in the interim.¹⁷ Tlingit & Haida have “declined to say” if they will continue construction on their facility.¹⁸ Meanwhile, Alaska Attorney General-designee Stephen Cox is “encouraged” by DOI’s shift and the “restor[ation of] the jurisdictional balance.”¹⁹

Although ANCSA may not apply to any other state, the related developments and examination of IGRA’s and IRA’s definitions may impact future policy within “the lower 48” as well.