Violation

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971): extinguishment of aboriginal title by statute

Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.

Alaska's 1867 cession treaty did not recognize Native title; Congress extinguished aboriginal claims in 1971 in exchange for land and money.

Treaty
Treaty of Cession of Russian Possessions (1867), Art. III; no U.S.-Native treaties in Alaska
Nations
Alaska Native peoples (Iñupiat, Yup'ik, Aleut/Unangan, Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and others)
When
1971
Acreage
40-44 million acres conveyed; $962.5 million

What happened

Alaska passed from Russia to the United States by the 1867 Treaty of Cession. The Congressional Research Service says Article III admitted "inhabitants of the ceded territory" as citizens and maintained their "free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion," but that the treaty did not otherwise discuss aboriginal property holdings. In Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, decided February 7, 1955, the Supreme Court held that "the taking by the United States of unrecognized Indian title is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment."

In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Congress said the settlement should be "in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives" and happen "without litigation." The law extinguished "all aboriginal titles, if any, and claims of aboriginal title in Alaska based on use and occupancy," including "any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights that may exist." It was a statute passed by Congress, not a treaty.

The CRS report says ANCSA "extinguished claims by Alaska Natives to over 360 million acres of land." In return, regional and village corporations shared "a settlement payment of approximately $962.5 million" and "approximately 45 million acres." The Court's 1955 holding means no court treated the earlier taking of Native title as compensable, and the 1971 law is Congress's own settlement of those claims.

Good to know. ANCSA was a law passed by Congress, not a treaty, and gave land to Native corporations rather than tribes. Alaska Native views of the deal vary.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. the taking by the United States of unrecognized Indian title is not compensable under the Fifth AmendmentTee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955) (Cornell LII)
  2. including any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights that may exist, are hereby extinguished43 U.S.C. 1603 (ANCSA section 4) (Cornell LII)
  3. extinguished claims by Alaska Natives to over 360 million acres of landAlaska Native Lands and ANCSA, CRS R46997
  4. in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives43 U.S.C. 1601 (ANCSA findings), Cornell LII

Research notes. Corrections: CRS says about 45 million acres conveyed; the input used 40 million (38+2) and Wikipedia's 44 million. The input's 'Treaty Art. III' quote was not opened here. The funding split ($462.5M Treasury + $500M mineral revenue) was not confirmed in the pages I read, only the $962.5M total. The 2025-26 NANA transfers and ANILCA were not verified. Labeled 'unilateral' because Congress enacted it; the statute followed negotiation with Alaska Native leaders, which sources describe, and tribal views of the deal vary.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Land return and Native-led work nearby

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Nations named 3

Taken to court in 2

Carried out through 1

Located in 1

Policy era 1

Land returns that respond to this 1

Concerns the instrument 1

Sources

  1. hcn.org/issues/58-2/landback-advances-across-the-west/news
  2. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-15/pdf/STATUTE-15-Pg539.pdfprimary record
  3. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/272/legal text copy
  4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Actpointer
  5. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-85/pdf/STATUTE-85-Pg688.pdfprimary record
The record’s fields
What happened
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971): extinguishment of aboriginal title by statute -- Article III of the 1867 cession treaty stated that 'the uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt' and did not recognize their title. In Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (Feb. 7, 1955) the Court held that taking unrecognized Indian title is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. ANCSA (Pub. L. 92-203, Dec. 18, 1971) was a negotiated settlement: Sec. 4(b) extinguished all aboriginal titles and claims based on use and occupancy in Alaska, including submerged lands and 'any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights'; Sec. 4(c) extinguished claims against the United States, the State and others. In return: $462.5 million from the Treasury plus $500 million from mineral revenue sharing ($962.5 million), and about 40 million acres (38 million in Secs. 12(b)-(c) plus 2 million in Sec. 14(h); Wikipedia says up to 44 million), delivered to 12 regional corporations plus a 13th and over 200 village corporations. Congress declared the settlement should be 'without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations' and without a reservation system.
Land affected
Aboriginal-title and use-and-occupancy claims across the rest of Alaska (statewide land area is about 365 million acres) and aboriginal hunting and fishing rights as such.not yet checked against a source
Legal aftermath
ANCSA lands continue to be transferred (e.g., nearly 28,000 acres to NANA Regional Corporation in 2025-26); a new law removed a requirement that some land be held in state trust for a future village corporation (HCN 2026). Subsistence protection later came through ANILCA (1980).not yet checked against a source
Kind
Violation
Confidence
High
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation
Notes
  • Some details are disputed

Correct this record