Clarence Alexander, et al. v. Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation, et al.

Enacting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“Act”) in 1971, Congress found “an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska”. 43 U.S.C. § 1601(a). Congress also found “settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives, without litigation, with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”. 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b). The Act also states “[d]ecisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. § 1613(c)] shall not be subject to judicial review unless such action is initiated” “within one year after the date of the filing of the map of boundaries as provided for in regulations promulgated by the Secretary”. 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b). The Questions Presented Are:

1. Do 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b) “decisions” settling individual Alaska Natives’ 14(c) reconveyance claims “with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property” mean the same as 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b) “[d]ecisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c)”, construed in harmony with, and not to thwart, the Fifth Amendment?

2. If Fifth Amendment process due to individual Alaska Natives with 14(c) reconveyance claims is “maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”, does the Fifth Amendment restrain federal courts from barring, as untimely under 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b), an illegality affirmative