Does ANILCA grant federal agencies plenary authority to preempt state law regulating how people hunt?

QUESTION PRESENTED States “unquestionably” have “broad trustee and police powers over wild animals within their jurisdictions.” Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 545 (1976). In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. § 3101 et seqg., where it sought to protect national interests in wildlife, id. § 3101(d), while at the same time preserving Alaska’s traditional management authority, id. § 3202(a). Nothing within ANILCA gives federal agencies clear authority to regulate how people hunt, although it may limit where and when hunting can occur. During the waning days of the Obama administration, the Department of the Interior issued three regulations to ban certain state-authorized hunting practices. Congress disapproved of the agency’s broadest regulation—which applied statewide to all national wildlife refuges—and in 2017 passed a law abrogating it. Yet the agency continues to preempt the same state law in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The Ninth Circuit upheld the agency’s action, finding the 2017 legislation irrelevant and concluding the agency has “plenary authority” over wildlife on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. App. 18. The question presented is: Does ANILCA, which sought to preserve the State’s traditional police powers over wildlife, grant federal agencies plenary authority to preempt state law regulating how people hunt?