In April of 2024, the Native Villages of Elim and Unalakleet filed a joint lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) over grants issued under the ReConnect Program, alleging that the agency bypassed tribal consent requirements.
The plaintiffs argue that the RUS awarded grants to telecommunications companies Interior Telephone Company (Interior) and Mukluk Telephone Company (Mukluk) without obtaining Resolutions of Tribal Consent from either western Alaska community. The grants, worth nearly $70 million, intended to expand broadband internet access in the two villages.
The lawsuit alleges that Interior and Mukluk solicited a letter of support from community services organization Kawerak, Inc. for their investment plans in the region. However, the tribes argue that this letter was improperly used as a substitute for the USDA’s required Tribal Government Resolution of Consent.
The communities fear this sidestepping of consent may set a dangerous precedent for future investments in Native communities.
According to a statement from the plaintiffs’ attorney, Jason R. Scherr, the RUS admitted in a response to the initial complaint that:
(1) the contested grants were issued without the required tribal consent;
(2) Kawerak, Inc., a regional non-profit, does not represent tribes and cannot issue tribal resolutions;
(3) letters of support from Kawerak do not fulfill the requirement for tribal consent; and
(4) the contested grants to Interior and Mukluk effectively disqualify the Nome Census Area from receiving future funding under the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.
Scherr added that the USDA has taken the stance that the only federally recognized tribal lands in Alaska are on Annette Island, a position the plaintiffs say denies most Native communities in the state the protections afforded to tribes under federal law.
At a September 20 hearing, Interior and Mukluk moved to intervene in the lawsuit to protect their interests in the grants. The plaintiffs opposed to the intervention, stating that it would cause further delays.
The judge presiding over the case, Matthew McCrary Scoble, listened to the arguments but did not make a final decision. Instead, he took the matters “under advisement,” meaning he will consider the arguments further and issue a written ruling at a later date.
