U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) released the following statement after a federal judge in Alaska issued a ruling that blocks a proposed land exchange to facilitate construction of a life-saving road between the isolated community of King Cove, Alaska, and nearby Cold Bay, which is home to an all-weather airport.
“Today’s ruling by an Alaska federal judge who regularly sides with Lower 48 environmental groups is another shameful betrayal of the people of King Cove and a demonstration that elections have real-world consequences for the safety and well-being of Alaskans,” said Sen. Sullivan. “National Democrats, doing the bidding of far-left Lower 48 radical environmental groups, have for decades relentlessly fought this commonsense land exchange through successive Democratic administrations and Democrat members of Congress, and by getting sympathetic far-left judges onto the federal bench who will prioritize the interests of birds over the well-being of Alaska Natives.
“I was recently in King Cove, where we held a community-wide town hall. The excitement of finally being able to start construction of this road brought tears to the eyes of many. Remember, Alaskans: At least 18 people from this heroic community have died over the years because of this decades-long impasse that continues to put human lives at risk in favor of birds. The heroic and resilient residents of King Cove have kept hope alive through numerous setbacks, but this latest ruling is truly shameful. I will continue to fight alongside them for as long as it takes to deliver a simple, single-lane, 11-mile, life-saving gravel road. The fight is once again renewed today.”
The ruling not only reflects a decades-long battle between people wanting access to emergency medical services and environmentalists valuing animal life over human life, but it also raises questions about whether the letter of the law matters more than real human lives. The Court based its decision on the failure of the land exchange to satisfy requirements in Title XI, the Endangered Species Act, and the Refuge Act. This ruling undid Secretary of the Interior Burgum’s decision that the land exchange furthered ANILCA’s purposes by striking a proper balance between environmental concerns and public safety needs.
Every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The American government was designed to protect those fundamental rights. When we have laws on the books directing courts to block access to life-saving medical treatment for nearly a thousand Alaskans in favor of protecting birds and spiders, are those laws consistent with our government’s duty to defend the people’s inalienable rights?
