Kempthorne
Alaska Constitutional Legal Defense Conservation Fund, Inc. v. Kempthorne
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The district court properly concluded that the Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Federal Subsistence Board’s (“Board”) regulation granting rural Alaskans priority for subsistence hunting constituted an “as-applied” challenge not barred by the statute of limitation. See Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710, 715 (9th Cir.1991).
The Board acted within its statutory authority under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”) by enacting 50 C.F.R. § 100.5 , which grants a preference for subsistence hunting to rural Alaskans. Congress intended to protect the subsistence way of life for Native and non-Native rural Alaskans. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 3111 (1), (4). Even if the preference is not explicitly provided for under Title VIII of ANILCA, the Board’s interpretation of the statute was reasonable. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-844 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).
Nor does the preference violate the Equal Protection Clause. The classification must satisfy only rational basis review as it involves neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 , 112…