Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States

These appeals involve an award of attorneys’ fees resulting from more than a decade of litigation over subsistence fishing rights in Alaskan waters. Defendanb-Ap-pellant/Cross-Appellee State of Alaska argues that the plaintiff villages were not entitled to recover fees on the issue of which government — -federal or state— could assert jurisdiction to manage subsistence fishing. Plaintiffs-Appellees cross-appeal, arguing that they were entitled not only to the fees awarded, but also to fees incurred during required administrative proceedings.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the district court’s determination that the villages were prevailing parties entitled to attorneys’ fees. We reverse its determination that it did not have discretion to award attorneys’ fees for pre-litigation administrative activities.

I

Factual Background & Procedural History

Over the past twelve years, the district court has been jointly managing several cases pertaining to subsistence fishing priorities. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 3101-3233 . Title VIII of ANILCA requires that rural Alaskans enjoy a…