Last week, invoking his wartime authority under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, President Donald Trump bypassed the courts and deported137 alleged Venezuelan members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Almost immediately, Judge James E. Boasberg, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court in D.C., issued a restraining order instructing President Trump to “turn the plane around” that was deporting illegal aliens with known criminal violations out of the country.
The incident has sparked a constitutional battle over the limits of judicial power over the president. The immediate question is whether U. S. District Court judges have the power to constrain the president by issuing nationwide injunctions or other rulings that seek to intervene in the execution of executive branch prerogatives or duties.
Some legal authorities regard Trump’s actions as flaunting the rule of law, while Trump and others argue the law is not fixed in this regard, and that Americans are tired of illegal immigrants seeking delay and refuge from an over-burdened court system. Others point to foreign manipulation and financing of the entire immigration wave, which they view as intentional and designed to destabilize our national security.
The Alien Enemies Act extends broad powers to the president that some argue he already constitutionally possesses, but which powers historically have only been invoked during wartime — most notably during WWII to justify imprisonment of Japanese Americans.
Alaska appellate attorney and Substack author Ralph Cushman is convinced federal judges do not have the power Judge Boasberg has asserted. In the first place, he says, only the Supreme Court has (“original”) jurisdiction to even hear such a case. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution says:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
“Original jurisdiction” means it must be filed in that court.
And even if the Supreme Court does hear such a case, says Cushman, it does not have the power to issue injunctions or mandates against the president or his (cabinet) ministers. Otherwise “the executive power” is not “vested in the president,” — it is vested in judicial overseers.
Finally, even if the Supreme Court rules that a presidential action is unconstitutional, Cushman contends, it still cannot issue injunctions or mandates. Rather, it is up to the Senate to impeach him for it. If the Senate does not see fit to convict in impeachment, then the president is free to continue to execute the laws of the United States as s/he sees fit. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the federal courts to have the authority to order the president or his ministers around. National security and the well-being of the country do not have time for such interference with their executive duties.
Similarly, says Cushman, U. S. District Judge Reyes was without jurisdiction to order the Department of Defense to admit transsexuals. If a House member believes the president is breaking some law by banning transsexuals from military duty, s/he can float an article of impeachment.
But impeachment is all the president needs to, and should need to, worry about. Republicans have lately been criticizing the federal courts for issuing “nationwide injunctions” against the president, as if local injunctions would be permissible.
But they aren’t, Cushman contends, because the courts do not have jurisdiction to enter injunctions restricting the president’s exercise of his powers as commander in chief, or as executive.
American are divided on the subject of whether our Constitution should be interpreted by the courts using a narrow “strict constructionist” view of the original intent of the framers, or using a broader context that emphasizes present-day social, political and economic objectives.
A recent Washington Post story outlined Trump’s legal argument to the court, concluding that,“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere.”
The same article quotes U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as calling Boasberg’s order an “intrusion on the president’s authority…These are foreign terrorists. The president has identified them and designated them.”
While some legal experts criticize Trump for challenging a long-standing balance of power between branches of government, others believe its overdue. Regardless, there is consensus that the issue is ripe for review by SCOTUS.
“This issue has never been properly litigated,” states Cushman. “The encroachment by the Judiciary into the Executive branch has been slow and steady over time, but there is little case law to reference. Trump’s push-back to the federal courts is entirely justified — by the Constitution.”
The issue of judicial authority has broad implications for the executive, especially in the area of immigration. Trump’s recent Supreme Court filing urges SCOTUS to sanction Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship at a state level, but Trump’s ban is awaiting clarification by the high court.
Jon Faulkner is the president of Alaska Gold Communications, the parent company of Must Read Alaska.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who occasionally takes an interest in national defense, is up in arms over Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, after a journalist leaked what was supposed to be an important private text conversation detailing possible military actions.
Murkowski stopped short of joining Democrat colleagues in calling for Hegseth and Waltz’ resignation, but she signaled to her followers on X that her woman’s instinct to vote against the confirmation of Hegseth due to character issues (drinking and womanizing) has been proven correct.
“I am appalled by the egregious security breach from top administration officials,” Murkowski scolded on X. “Their disregard for stringent safeguards and secure channels could have compromised a high-stakes operation and put our servicemembers at risk. I hope this serves as a wake-up call that operational security must be a top priority for everyone—especially our leaders.”
The chat text over the app known as Signal was a discussion about possible US air strikes against Houthi fighters in Yemen. The chat was unclassified but the problem is someone — a staff member, apparently — had accidentally added the editor of The Atlantic Monthly to the chat, and when he received the message, he blasted it to the world.
Murkowski did not hold that leftist editor accountable for leaking what were obviously national security conversations.
In the past, Alaska’s female senator never criticized former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for going under anesthesia in December of 2023 for surgical treatment of prostate cancer, after never having advised the president or anyone else in the cabinet that he would be incapacitated. Murkowski did not comment then, even though by then it was clear that the president himself was incapacitated by dementia, and the Defense Secretary was unconscious. Although Americans still don’t know how long he was unconscious, a minimally invasive prostatectomy, as described in Austin’s case, takes between two to four hours.
Murkowski also didn’t have anything to say about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who left Ambassador Christopher Stevens to die in Libya in 2012, after Clinton ignored requests for additional security at the Benghazi Embassy compound and failed to respond to the crisis, effectively abandoning Stevens. Murkowski said nothing about Hillary Clinton keeping a server in her bathroom, from which she conducted top secret business.
Murkowski didn’t harshly criticize President Joe Biden when he recklessly withdrew American forces from Kabul, Afghanistan on July 26, 2021, resulting in the deaths of 13 US service members after a suicide bomber slipped through security at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport.
“I have never supported an endless war in Afghanistan and have called for our troops to eventually return home, but this was not the responsible way to leave the country nor was it even the manner the President’s own advisors recommended,” she said, without holding Biden or his top commanders accountable for the 13 deaths.
Murkowski said nothing about the cocaine found in the West Wing of the Biden White House, or Biden’s inability to complete a sentence over the past few years. She said nothing about former Secretary Antony Blinken collecting 51 signatures of former intelligence officials to lie about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
But in 2025, Murkowski is not holding Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to account after he wrote the story with all the details of the Signal chat to which he had been inadvertently added.
In previous eras, patriots would be calling Goldberg’s action treasonous, as defined under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2381), in the sense that he gave aid and comfort to the Houthis, who have, since November 2023, conducted over 170 attacks on US and commercial ships in the Red Sea.
Even the magazine inadvertently characterized its own actions as dangrous, writing in its newsletter on Wednesday:
“The defense of the United States is a serious business. Breaches of national security are especially dangerous. So perhaps I should not have laughed at the reactions of Donald Trump and his staff and Cabinet members to the revelationsby The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, and staff writer Shane Harris about a group chat on Signal (one that accidentally included Jeff) dedicated to planning strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen.”
Anchorage’s Election Administrator William Northrop resigned from his position just days before the city’s April 1 election, leaving Municipal Clerk Jamie Heinz to step into the role she held previously, before being elevated to Clerk.
The announcement came in a brief statement from Heinz, who did not offer an explanation.
“Mr. Northrop has respectfully resigned from his position as the Municipal Election Administrator. As we near Election Day on April 1, I will lead the MOA Election Team in our work to administer the Regular Municipal Election and can assure the public that this change has not and will not affect the integrity of the election. We thank Mr. Northrop for his service to the community and wish him well in his future endeavors,” Heinz said.
Congressman Nick Begich successfully intervened to reverse the planned lease termination of the Alaska Volcano Observatory in Anchorage, his office reported.
By working closely with the Department of the Interior and the General Services Administration, Begich ensured that the observatory’s critical operations would continue uninterrupted, as it plays a vital role in monitoring volcanic activity across the state that provides early warnings that protect lives, property, and the aviation sector.
The observatory’s federal office lease, which had been slated for termination, was officially reinstated as of March 18, thanks to the swift action of Begich and his team.
It’s especially important due to the “yellow” status of Mount Spurr, a stratovolcano located about 75 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska, which has shown above-normal signs of activity, including shallow earthquake activity, ground deformation, and elevated volcanic gas emissions. If the volcano erupts, it would have a significant impact on the more populated areas of Alaska, including health impacts for some, and interrupted flights for others.
“The Alaska Volcano Observatory federal office lease is critical for mission objectives, particularly in the midst of a growing volcanic threat,” Congressman Begich said in a statement. “This observatory is important to Alaska’s safety and aviation industry. My staff and I worked with the Department of Interior and the GSA to address this issue as a high priority.”
Congressman Begich reiterated that the observatory’s operations are indispensable to Alaska’s safety and economic stability.
“By acting swiftly to restore the lease, we ensured that critical monitoring systems remain in place, aviation alerts continue uninterrupted, and Alaska’s residents, businesses, and visitors are protected from avoidable risks,” he said.
The Trump Administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency, is cancelling the leases of dozens of federal building leases nationwide in an effort to reduce the costs of government. The current number of federal building leases slated for cancellation is 136 leases, according to the DOGE website.
On March 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the dismantling of the US Department of Education, aiming to transfer educational authority back to states and local entities. While the order seeks to reduce the department’s size and scope, eliminating it entirely requires congressional approval. Essential functions like administering student loans and Pell Grants are to be reassigned to other agencies.
In Alaska, the Alaska State Legislature is exploring alternative taxation methods to fund state services due to fluctuating oil revenues and prices. The legislature is requiring a more stable financial foundation. One proposal, the Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act (MRAK, February 21, 2025, Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act Would Establish Parent Education Accounts And More), aims to reduce educational expenses by eliminating bureaucratic overhead and empowering parents with direct control over education funding. This approach seeks to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the state’s education system.
The Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act is designed to decentralize the education system, shift control to local communities, empower parents with school choice, and eliminate wasteful bureaucracy. The primary goals of this act are increasing educational outcomes, reducing government overreach, and saving taxpayer dollars.
The Alaska Department of Education & Early Development established in Alaska since statehood.
That was then. Now is now.
Instead of relying on a state-controlled, top-down bureaucracy, Alaska can replace DEED with a streamlined, technology-driven education system that is decentralized, efficient, and parent-controlled.
Key Elements of the Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act
1. Eliminate the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (DEED)
DEED is a bureaucratic middleman that consumes hundreds of millions of dollars but does not directly educate children. It is antiquated. There is no need in government for this, especially in the coming years of possible oil production and/or price decline. It adds layers of unnecessary administrative costs, enforces rigid compliance structures, and slows educational innovation.
For decades, Alaska’s education system has been dominated by a centralized bureaucracy that serves itself rather than the students it claims to educate. At its core, this system is not about fostering knowledge, critical thinking, or preparing children for the real world. Instead, it regulates, restricts, and inefficiently redistributes funds, ensuring that money is absorbed by layers of administrators, compliance officers, and political interests rather than making its way into classrooms.
Simply put, it is not an education system. It is a system of control, power, and obsolescence.
It controls the flow of funding by deciding which schools, programs, and initiatives receive financial support. The bad news is that these decisions are not based on student performance, and the worse news is that the unelected policymakers making these decisions are only bound by their own bureaucratic rules, not by accountability to voters or outcomes.
What’s more egregious is Alaska school districts restrict curriculum choices. This legal action ensures that what students learn is dictated by political agendas rather than educational merit or local community needs. This oppresses the intellectual, social, and behavioral development of children, shaping their worldview through a system designed not to teach independent thought, but to enforce ideological conformity.
This top-down system is not driven by parents, teachers, or students. Instead, it is crafted by legislative mandates, education unions, and special interest groups that prioritize power and funding over real learning. It is a political apparatus first, a money laundering machine second, and an educational system third.
If Alaska is serious about providing a world-class education for its children, it must dismantle this bureaucratic stranglehold and return control of education to the people who care most about it—parents, teachers, and local communities.
Restoring Education to Alaskans: The Case for the Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act
For too long, Alaska’s education system has been trapped in a bureaucratic stranglehold, where state-controlled school districts and administrative overhead siphon resources away from students and teachers. Instead of focusing on academic excellence, the system has become an expensive, inefficient, and politically driven enterprise. Without any shame, it prioritizes compliance over creativity, regulation over results, and bureaucracy over students.
The Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act is a bold step toward breaking this cycle of inefficiency and returning education to the people it should serve, parents, teachers, and students. At its core, the act proposes the complete elimination of school districts, which have become nothing more than layers of unnecessary administration that drain funding, limit school choice, and force children into failing educational models based on geography rather than merit or preference.
Instead of maintaining a state-run monopoly on education, this reform places control where it belongs: in the hands of parents. Through Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), families will receive direct education funding, allowing them to choose the best learning environment for their children, whether that be public schools, private schools, charter schools, homeschooling, microschools, or hybrid learning programs.
This reform is built on three fundamental principles:
Decentralization: Moves power away from distant bureaucrats to local communities, parents, and educators. No more top-down mandates from education unions and state departments that do not reflect the needs of Alaska’s diverse student population.
Cost Reduction: Eliminates bloated school district administration, cutting millions in unnecessary spending and ensuring that funds go directly to students, not bureaucrats.
Parental Control Over Education: Allows parents, not the state, to determine how and where their children are educated. This ensures that every child has access to an education that fits their unique learning style, values, and future goals.
Education should be about empowering students, not sustaining bureaucracies.
The Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act ensures that resources follow students, not systems, thus ushering in a new era of educational choice, fiscal responsibility, and academic excellence for all Alaskans.
The Problem: School District Bureaucracy Wastes Money and Lowers Educational Quality
Alaska has 54 school districts, each with its own administrative bureaucracy.
A significant portion of education funding never reaches the classroom. Money is spent on district-level administrators, consultants, and compliance officers rather than students.
Public schools are monopolistic and unaccountable. Families must send their children to a school dictated by their ZIP code rather than choosing the best fit for their needs.
State and federal education mandates force compliance, not innovation. Schools spend millions on bureaucratic paperwork instead of improving teaching.
Student performance in Alaska lags behind national standards. Despite massive spending, academic results remain poor, especially in rural communities.
In short, Alaska’s education system spends excessively but underperforms.
The Solution: Abolish School Districts and Implement Universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs)
Dissolve all 54 school districts and eliminate district offices entirely.
Redirect all per-student funding directly to parents through ESAs, giving them full control over how to educate their children.
Allow families to use ESA funds for:
1) Private school tuition
2) Charter school enrollment
3) Homeschooling costs
4) Microschooling
5) Online learning programs
6) Tutoring services
Empower local communities to establish independent schools without state interference.
Free teachers from district bureaucracy by allowing them to start private, charter, or independent schools without unnecessary red tape.
Education should be student-focused, not district-focused.
The Impact: Better Education, More Choice, and Millions in Estimated Savings
The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage reported that in 2022, Alaska’s per-pupil spending was $20,191, which was 29% higher than the national average of $15,633.
Alaska currently spends over $18,000 per student—one of the highest rates in the country. By eliminating bloated district bureaucracy, more money would go directly to students and teachers.
Streamlining educational administration in Alaska by eliminating non-teaching entities could result in substantial financial savings for the state. This approach involves reducing administrative components within the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), dissolving all 54 Alaska school districts along with their administrative bodies, and cutting costs associated with federal mandate compliance and state-imposed education regulations. Additionally, eliminating organizations such as the Alaska State Board of Education, the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, and the Alaska Professional Teaching Practices Commission would further contribute to these savings.
By directing education funds more efficiently and minimizing bureaucratic layers, Alaska could potentially save millions of dollars, ensuring that a larger portion of the budget directly benefits students and classroom activities.
These estimates suggest that the Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act could potentially save millions annually by restructuring the educational administrative framework and promoting localized control.
Educational Impact: More Flexibility and Higher Performance
Parents would have direct control over their child’s education.
Students would no longer be forced into failing schools based on ZIP codes.
Schools would compete for students, leading to improved teaching and innovation.
Homeschooling, microschools, and online education would be fully funded.
Local Control Impact: True Community-Based Education
Each town, city, or borough could establish its own locally run schools.
No more state or federal mandates on school operations.
Education would reflect community values, not state-imposed regulations.
Alaska has outgrown a centralized school system. Parents, teachers, and students should control education—not bureaucrats.
The Future of Education in Alaska: True Freedom and Excellence
No more school districts wasting millions on administrative bloat.
No more politicians controlling what children are taught.
No more failing schools trapping students in mediocrity.
With Education Savings Accounts, parents will decide how and where their children learn. Competition will drive quality, costs will go down, and educational excellence will rise.
Alaska must lead the nation in true education freedom. The time for reform is NOW.
The US Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold a Biden Administration regulation targeting “ghost guns” — firearms assembled from components or kits that lack serial numbers and are untraceable. Many hobbyists enjoy making these types of firearms.
The Biden rule mades unserialized “buy build shoot” kits illegal. Gun plans and molding materials for 3-D printers are also illegal, as is making a firearm with a 3-D printer if there is no serial number on the firearm.
The court decision bolsters the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate at least some of these weapons under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Gun control advocates applauded the court ruling.
The majority opinion was authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who concluded that the ATF’s rule falls within the scope of the 1968 law, which grants the agency broad authority to regulate firearms in interstate commerce.
Gorsuch wrote that the rule aligns with Congress’s intent to curb the circulation of dangerous weapons while balancing Second Amendment considerations.
The high court stopped short of issuing a blanket endorsement of the regulation’s application. The decision leaves room for future challenges to specific kits or products, which means individuals or manufacturers could contest the rule’s authority on a case-by-case basis.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the Biden Administration’s ATF overstepped its authority.
Thomas’ dissent says the regulation expands the definition of a “firearm” beyond what Congress originally intended in 1968, imposing new restrictions without congressional approval.
Alito questioned the rule’s fundamental compatibility with Second Amendment rights and warned of its infringement on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
Looking through the seven-day financial reports for the Anchorage Municipal elections, which end April 1, it appears the union money continues to pour in for the Democrat candidates:
Kameron Perez-Verdia $1,000 ASEA/AFSCME Local 52
Daniel Volland $1,000 EPIC/Alaska Public Employees Association/AFT
Margot Bellamy $1,000 IBEW PAC
Kelly Lessens $1,000 ASEA/AFSCME Local 52
Kelly Lessens $1,000 IBEW PAC
In this election, there were a reported $35,500 in union donations to candidates, as of March 1. The amounts above are since that report.
The Anchorage Assembly, which has the final say in approving union contracts, oversees agreements that commit taxpayers to wage, benefit, and other cost increases for up to five years.
Currently, more than half (55%) of the city’s budget is allocated to salaries and benefits. More than 58% of municipal revenue is derived from property taxes.
Union donations play a significant role in the campaigns of Assembly candidates.
Kameron Perez-Verdia has received $11,000 from unions this election cycle. Over the course of his Assembly campaigns, unions have contributed a total of $44,600 to his campaigns.
Daniel Volland has received $9,000 in union support this election, in addition to $2,000 from a previous campaign. The Alaska AFL-CIO has further contributed $2,500 to his campaign through its special interest group, “Putting Alaskans First.”
The AFL-CIO has also funneled $5,000 to “Putting Alaskans First” to oppose Jared Goecker, who is running for the open Eagle River Assembly seat.
Margot Bellamy, seeking re-election, has received $6,000 from unions this year. Over the years, unions have contributed a total of $26,550 to her campaigns.
Kelly Lessens has received $6,500 from unions in this election cycle, adding to a total of $27,800 in union support across her political career.
Organized labor remains the largest special interest group contributing to local elections in Alaska. The financial influence of unions on Anchorage Assembly and School Board races raises ongoing questions about the balance of power between elected officials, labor groups, and taxpayers.
Because union contracts representing a significant portion of municipal expenditures, voters will have to consider the role of these contributions and how they influence their elected officials.
Alaskan culture is deeply rooted in our independence, our values, and our deep respect for individual rights. That’s why House Bill 89, a so-called “red flag” law being considered by the Alaska Legislature, should concern every Alaskan who believes in due process, the Constitution, and limited government.
At first glance, red flag laws sound like a well-intentioned effort to prevent gun violence. But the way it’s written, it opens the door to government overreach and abuse with almost no checks in place. This bill would allow a judge to order someone’s firearms seized without them ever being present in court, based solely on allegations.
Imagine being stripped of your rights and your property without even knowing there was a hearing. That’s what this bill allows through “ex parte” proceedings — where only one side of the story is heard. There’s no opportunity to present your defense, no chance to present facts. Just an accusation, a court order, and a knock at your door by a police officer demanding your firearms.
Worse yet, this law could be triggered by a wide range of individuals and based on a low standard of proof — “reasonable cause.” That may sound harmless, but in the real world, it’s a vague threshold that could easily be abused in emotionally charged situations like custody battles, family disputes, or misunderstandings.
And while the bill claims to protect public safety, it fails to address the root of the problem. Confiscating firearms from someone in crisis doesn’t offer them any real help. There’s no built-in mental health support, no services provided — just a court order and a knock at the door. The real solution to helping people in crisis is care, not confiscation.
And finally, there’s the broader issue — this law violates the Second Amendment. Alaskans have a right to bear arms. That right should not be taken away without a conviction, without due process, and without meaningful safeguards. If someone is truly a danger, there are already legal tools available, such as involuntary commitment procedures or protective orders that include full hearings and legal representation.
We all want safer communities. We all want to prevent tragedy. But sacrificing the rights of innocent people in the name of public safety is a dangerous precedent — and one that doesn’t reflect Alaska’s values.
House Bill 89 may be called a “red flag” law, but in reality, it’s a flashing warning sign — that government is reaching too far, too fast, and without respecting the rights of its citizens.
Alaska doesn’t need laws that trade liberty for the illusion of safety. We need real solutions — ones that strengthen public safety without trampling on constitutional rights. HB 89 does neither. The Legislature should reject this bill and stand firmly for the freedoms and fairness that define Alaska.
Mia Costello is the Republican minority leader in the Alaska House of Representatives.
A federal judge has ruled that the US Department of the Interior failed to obtain a required court order before canceling oil and gas leases held by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Judge Sharon Gleason’s decision represents a massive victory for AIDEA, which has been fighting to overturn the Biden 2023 lease cancellations. AIDEA is a stand-alone state agency dedicated to economic growth.
The case stems from the Biden Administration’s decision to illegally suspend and ultimately cancel AIDEA’s leases, citing legal deficiencies in the original environmental impact statement conducted under the Trump Administration.
In 2017, Congress enacted, and President Trump signed, the “Tax Cut and Jobs Act,” which made several provisions related to ANWR, including:
Removing all discretion and requiring the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to “establish and administer a competitive oil and gas program for the “leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas” in the 1002 area.
Directed the Bureau of Land Management to hold two competitive oil and gas lease sales in the coastal plain (approximately 1.56 million acres) of ANWR. Each sale must offer at least 400,000 acres for a total minimum of 800,000 acres, or roughly 51% of the total coastal plain. Removing all discretion and requiring the Secretary to conduct not fewer than two valid lease sales of at least 400,000 acres each, with the most prospective areas of ANWR included in each lease sale.
Inclusion of up to 2,000 surface acres of Federal land to be covered by production and support facilities for the oil and gas industry.
The leases, which covered 365,775 acres in ANWR’s Coastal Plain, were put out to bid in 2020 and AIDEA was awarded seven leases in January 2021 following the congressional mandate. When Biden took over the White House, his administration simply pulled back the legally awarded leases, using the excuse that the environmental work wasn’t good enough.
AIDEA filed suit in October 2023, arguing that the Biden Administration lacked the authority to unilaterally cancel the leases without a judicial order. The agency contended that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required Interior to follow regulations under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, which mandates court approval for the cancellation of producing or potentially valuable oil and gas leases.
Gleason, who usually rules against oil interests, sided with AIDEA’s interpretation, stating that the NPRPA’s judicial cancellation requirement applied to the ANWR leases. The court found that the Coastal Plain of ANWR is “known to contain valuable deposits of oil and gas,” citing federal environmental impact statements from both 2019 and 2024.
The ruling has implications for future oil and gas development in ANWR. While the Biden administration sought to curtail fossil fuel development, even in the area of ANWR set aside for oil and gas, Alaska state officials and industry groups held that the leases are essential for economic growth and energy security.
Interior has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling of the Alaska district judge, but the Biden Administration is no longer in charge of that decision. If the ruling stands, AIDEA may become a big player in the revival of efforts to conduct oil and gas exploration in ANWR’s Coastal Plain.
