Whether the decisions by Alaska Native Village Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to reconvey land under Section 14(c) must comply with the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Enacting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“Act”) in 1971, Congress found “an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska’. 43 U.S.C. § 1601(a). Congress also found “settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives, without litigation, with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”. 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b). The Act also states “[d]ecisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. § 1613(c)] shall not be subject to judicial review unless such action is initiated” “within one year after the date of the filing of the map of boundaries as provided for in regulations promulgated by the Secretary”. 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b). The Questions Presented Are: 1. Do 48 U.S.C. § 1601(b) “decisions” settling individual Alaska Natives’ 14(c) reconveyance claims “with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property” mean the same as 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b) “[dJecisions made by a Village Corporation to reconvey land under section 14(c)”, construed in harmony with, and not to thwart, the Fifth Amendment? 2. If Fifth Amendment process due to individual Alaska Natives with 14(c) reconveyance claims is “maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”, does the Fifth Amendment restrain federal courts from barring, as untimely under 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b), an illegality affirmative ii defense and a compulsory recoupment counterclaim by individual Alaska Natives, challenging a Village Corporation’s § 14(c) reconveyance decision denying “participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property”, as illegal and unconstitutional? iii PARTIES Petitioners Clarence Alexander Demetrie (Dacho) Alexander Respondents Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government David Bernhardt, Secretary of the Interior, in his official capacity iv LIST OF PROCEEDINGS United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 21-35048 Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation; Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government, v. Clarence Alexander; Demetrie Alexander (Dacho), v. David Bernhardt, Secretary of the Interior, in His Official Capacity, Date of Final Opinion: December 15, 2021 Date of Rehearing Denial: January 21, 2022 United States District Court for the District of Alaska No. 4:18-cv-0016-HRH Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation; and Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government, Plaintiffs, v. Clarence Alexander; Dacho Alexander, v. David Bernhardt, Secretary of the Interior, in His Official Capacity, Date of Final Order: December 19, 2019