NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was a landmark piece of legislation passed by the United States Congress in 1971. The act was designed to settle land claims of Alaska Natives, who had been living in the region for thousands of years. The act provided for the creation of regional and village corporations, which would be owned by Alaska Natives and would receive title to 44 million acres of land and $962.5 million in compensation. The act also provided for the establishment of a Native Claims Commission to oversee the settlement process. The act was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1975, in the case of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Alaska Natives, finding that the act was constitutional and that the land claims were valid. The ruling established the precedent that the federal government had a duty to protect the rights of Native Americans and to recognize their land claims. The ruling also established that the federal government had a duty to negotiate in good faith with Native Americans when settling land claims. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act has had a lasting impact on the lives of Alaska Natives. The act provided a way for Alaska Natives to gain recognition of their land claims and to receive compensation for them. The act also provided a way for Alaska Natives to gain economic independence and to become self-sufficient. The act has been credited with helping to preserve the culture and traditions of Alaska Natives and has been seen as a major step forward in the recognition of Native American rights.

PACIFIC FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES In the dissenting opinion of The Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the majority decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He believed that Congress had not intended to give exclusive rights to fish in navigable waters when it passed the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which prohibited fishing with nets or other devices within a certain distance from shorelines without permission from local authorities. Instead, he argued that Congress only meant to protect navigation by preventing interference with vessels on navigable waters; thus, no exclusive right could be granted for fishing in such areas as this would interfere with public use of these waterways for transportation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Holmes noted that if an individual were allowed exclusive rights over a particular area of water then they would have control over all activities taking place there - including those related to navigation - which is something Congress did not intend when passing this law. Therefore, he concluded that granting exclusive rights for fishing in navigable waters was beyond what Congress authorized and should not stand as part of their ruling on this case