State v. Native Village of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734

Tribes (Tanana, Nulato, Akiak, Kalskag, Lower Kalskag, Kenaitze) sue the State of Alaska agencies over ICWA jurisdiction and full faith and credit for tribal child custody actions.
Alaska recognizes tribes as Indian tribes; several tribal courts handle child protection, custody, and adoption decrees.
2004 AG Opinion opined Alaska had exclusive jurisdiction unless tribes reassumed or cases transferred under ICWA; DHSS/OCS policies were amended accordingly.
Court decisions in Nenana, K.E., F.P. held Alaska tribes lacked initiating ICWA jurisdiction without reassumption; John v. Baker recognized inherent tribal sovereignty outside Indian country.
2001–2004: C.R.H. opened transfer when Congress allowed transfer under ICWA §1911(b); 2004 Opinion and OCS changes prompted Tribes to sue for declaratory relief and full faith and credit.
Superior Court granted partial summary judgment recognizing concurrent jurisdiction; Alaska Supreme Court limits decision to whether tribes may initiate ICWA-defined proceedings absent reassumption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federally recognized Alaska Native tribes can initiate ICWA-defined child custody proceedings.	Tribesshould have inherent concurrent authority.	Nenana/F.P./K.E. require reassumption; tribes cannot initiate without §1918.	Yes; tribes have concurrent initiating authority absent reassumption.
Whether tribal court rulings in ICWA proceedings are entitled to full faith and credit by the State.	Tribal orders should receive full faith and credit under ICWA §1911(d).	State may limit recognition absent reassumption or transfer.	Yes-to-full-faith-and-credit for tribal ICWA orders.
Whether the case is ripe for decision given pre-enforcement context.	Actions taken post-2004 Opinion create concrete controversy.	Case is pre-enforcement; too abstract without facts of enforcement.	ripe for limited decision on inherent concurrent jurisdiction.
Whether Nenana/F.P./K.E. must be overruled to accept concurrent ICWA jurisdiction outside Indian country.	Nenana should be superseded by John v. Baker and later cases.	Nenana controlling; divestiture by P.L. 280 still possible.	Nenana partly overruled; concurrent tribal ICWA jurisdiction outside Indian country recognized.

Native Village of Nenana v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, 722 P.2d 219 (Alaska 1986) (P.L. 280 yields exclusive state jurisdiction; reassumption needed for tribal control)
In re K.E., 744 P.2d 1173 (Alaska 1987) (Tribe must reassume jurisdiction to exercise §1911(a) or (b))
In re F.P., 843 P.2d 1214 (Alaska 1992) (Nenana control; ICWA/ANCSA implications reaffirmed)
John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999) (Established inherent tribal sovereignty to regulate internal domestic relations outside Indian country; ICWA framework)
Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991) (Concurrent inherent sovereignty; ICWA/P.L. 280 interplay permitting tribal authority)
Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 155 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) (Affirmed tribal sovereignty and potential full faith and credit for tribal orders)
In re C.R.H., 29 P.3d 849 (Alaska 2001) (Addressed transfer under §1911(b); implications for concurrent jurisdiction)
Holyfield, Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (ICWA purpose and state-tribal jurisdiction balance)