16 U.S.C. § 3117

Judicial enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Exhaustion of administrative remedies; civil action; parties; preliminary injunctive relief; other relief; costs and attorney’s fees

Local residents and other persons and organizations aggrieved by a failure of the State or the Federal Government to provide for the priority for subsistence uses set forth in section 3114 of this title (or with respect to the State as set forth in a State law of general applicability if the State has fulfilled the requirements of section 3115(d) of this title) may, upon exhaustion of any State or Federal (as appropriate) administrative remedies which may be available, file a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska to require such actions to be taken as are necessary to provide for the priority. In a civil action filed against the State, the Secretary may be joined as a party to such action. The court may grant preliminary injunctive relief in any civil action if the granting of such relief is appropriate under the facts upon which the action is based. No order granting preliminary relief shall be issued until after an opportunity for hearing. In a civil action filed against the State, the court shall provide relief, other than preliminary relief, by directing the State to submit regulations which satisfy the requirements of section 3114 of this title; when approved by the court, such regulations shall be incorporated as part of the final judicial order, and such order shall be valid only for such period of time as normally provided by State law for the regulations at issue. Local residents and other persons and organizations who are prevailing parties in an action filed pursuant to this section shall be awarded their costs and attorney’s fees.

(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(22)(A), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358(c) Section as sole Federal judicial remedy

This section is the sole Federal judicial remedy created by this subchapter for local residents and other residents who, and organizations which, are aggrieved by a failure of the State to provide for the priority of subsistence uses set forth in section 3114 of this title.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title VII, § 807, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2426; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(22)(A), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358; Pub. L. 105–83, title III, § 316(b)(7), (d), Nov. 14, 1997, 111 Stat. 1594, 1595.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1997—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–83, § 316(b)(7), which directed amendment of section by adding subsec. (b) reading as follows: “State agency actions may be declared invalid by the court only if they are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. When reviewing any action within the specialized knowledge of a State agency, the court shall give the decision of the State agency the same deference it would give the same decision of a comparable Federal agency.”, was repealed by Pub. L. 105–83, § 316(d). See Effective and Termination Dates of 1997 Amendments note below.

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out subsec. (b) which had provided that a civil action filed pursuant to this section was to be assigned for hearing at the earliest possible date, was to take precedence over other matters pending on the docket of the United States district court at that time, and was to be expedited in every way by such court and any appellate court.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective and Termination Dates of 1997 Amendment

Until laws are adopted in Alaska which provide for definition, preference, and participation specified in sections 3113 to 3115 of this title, amendment by Pub. L. 105–83 was effective only for purpose of determining whether State’s laws provide for such definition, preference, and participation, and such amendment was repealed on Dec. 1, 1998, because such laws had not been adopted, see section 316(d) of Pub. L. 105–83 set out as a note under section 3102 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Marek v. Chesny

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marek v. Chesny (1985) scotus · cites it 2× “2426 , 16 U. S. C. § 3117 (a). 25. Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act of 1980, 94 Stat.”

Bobby v. State of Alaska (1989) akd · cites it 7× “Before addressing the substance of these issues, some preliminary comments upon the nature of these proceedings, and in particular the scope and type of judicial proceedings under ANILCA § 807, 16 U.S.C. § 3117 , are appropriate. A. Judicial Enforcement of ANILCA Section…”

McDowell v. State (1989) alaska · cites it 2× “They are thus probably entitled to injunctive relief under ANILCA, 16 U.S.C.A. § 3117 (a). [6] *4 However, the Kenaitze decision does not change the issues presented in this appeal because the 1986 statute remains fully applicable to all non-federal lands.”

United States v. George J. Alexander, United States of America v. Henry W. Peele (1991) ca9 · cites it 4× “S.C. § 3117 (c). It is unclear whether this language precludes the defense of statutory invalidity in a criminal proceeding.”

Alaska v. Federal Subsistence Board (2008) ca9 · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 3117 (a). Alaska does not pursue its ANILCA claim on appeal.”

Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. State of Alaska (1988) ca9 · cites it 2× “As noted, this type of lawsuit is authorized by ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. § 3117 , and is designed to bring state regulation into compliance with federal law.”

Ninilchik Traditional Council Jack Kvasnikoff, Jr. v. United States of America Bruce Babbitt (2000) ca9 “The court denied NTC’s request without reaching the merits for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies as required under 16 U.S.C. § 3117 (1985). The parties eventually negotiated a settlement whereby NTC agreed not to seek further preliminary injunctive relief regarding…”

Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States (1994) ca9 · cites it 5× “PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: The Native Villages of Quinhagak and Goodnews Bay and others appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction in their action brought under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §…”

Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States (2002) ca9 · cites it 4× “Pursuant to § 807(a) of ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. § 3117 (a), the Quinhagak plaintiffs filed a motion requesting $222,861.”

United States v. Byron v. Skinna (1991) ca9 “4 Because that ruling dis *534 poses of the appeal, we do not reach other issues regarding the failure of Skinna to seek administrative relief from Alaska, the effect of the Secretary of Interior’s wit-holding of federal regulation in favor of Alaska’s, the effect of the…”

United States v. Byron v. Skinna (1990) ca9 “3 Because that ruling disposes of the appeal, we do not reach other issues regarding the failure of Skinna to seek administrative relief from Alaska, the effect of the Secretary of Interior’s withholding of federal regulation in favor of Alaska’s, the effect of the exclusive…”

Alaska v. Babbitt (1995) ca9 “16 U.S.C. § 3117 (a) (ANILCA § 807) (certain persons aggrieved by the federal government’s failure to comply with certain sections of the Act "may .”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.