The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is defending its decision to award nearly $70 million in broadband funding to two telecommunications companies amid a growing legal dispute with the Native Villages of Unalakleet and Elim, who argue the funds were improperly allocated due to a misclassification of their tribal lands.
At the heart of the USDA Native Villages Tribal Land $70M Dispute is the agency’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) definition of “tribal lands.” According to the USDA, Unalakleet and Elim do not qualify as tribal lands under its current criteria—unlike federally recognized reservations—thereby justifying the agency’s decision to distribute funds elsewhere under the ReConnect broadband program.
However, the Native Villages assert that the court has already recognized them as occupying tribal land and functioning as tribal governments, and they are pushing for a final declaration that the USDA acted improperly. In April, they filed for summary judgment, arguing that the funds—distributed to Interior Telephone Co. and Mukluk Telephone Co.—were allocated without the tribes’ required consent and in violation of federal program regulations.
The USDA responded by urging the court to dismiss the tribes’ request and uphold the funding decision. Government attorneys argue that any challenge to the RUS’s tribal land definition was not included in the original complaint and fails on its merits regardless.
Despite a prior denial of the tribes’ preliminary injunction, the court had acknowledged that the government applied “a standard that was inapplicable to the Alaskan people that Congress has directed it to serve.” The villages maintain this acknowledgment supports their claim.
Under ReConnect program rules, tribal consent is required for projects affecting tribal land, and only one project can be funded per geographic area. The tribes claim the USDA failed on both counts—neither seeking nor receiving permission from Unalakleet and Elim before approving the projects.
Representing the Native Villages are attorneys Susan Orlansky (Reeves Amodio LLC) and Jason R. Scherr (Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP). The USDA’s RUS is represented by S. Lane Tucker, Dustin M. Glazier, and Noah Roetman from the U.S. Department of Justice. Interior Telephone Co. and Mukluk Telephone Co. are represented by legal teams from Holland & Hart LLP and Stinson LLP.
The case, Native Village of Unalakleet et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service et al., is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (Case No. 3:24-cv-00100).
