Wed. Mar 12th, 2025

Nesbett Courthouse in downtown Anchorage on Oct. 7, 2024. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

Nesbett Courthouse in downtown Anchorage on Oct. 7, 2024. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

An Anchorage Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline as incompatible with the state constitution.

The suit, filed last year, alleges that the founding laws of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. are incompatible with the Alaska Constitution’s guarantee of equal access to natural resources because the liquefied natural gas pipeline would result in so much climate change that it would destroy access to fish and wildlife.

The state had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs made a countermotion, leading Judge Dani Crosby to rule on summary judgment.

In her ruling Tuesday, Crosby sided with the state of Alaska, whose attorneys had argued that the lawsuit is substantially similar to previous cases decided by the Alaska Supreme Court

In a written statement, the law firm Our Children’s Trust — which has been representing the plaintiffs — said it would appeal Crosby’s decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. When the lawsuit was filed, the eight plaintiffs ranged in age from 11 to 22.

“Today’s ruling is a clear miscarriage of justice with enormous implications. Alaska’s Constitution expressly guarantees equal access to and sustainable yield of the critical natural resources Alaska’s youth need to sustain their lives, health, and cultures,” wrote attorney Andrew Welle for the plaintiffs. “Today’s decision eviscerates these protections by placing not only the Alaska LNG Project but all natural resource management decisions beyond review by Alaska’s Courts, upending decades of precedent.”

The AKLNG project envisions a pipeline running from the North Slope to Cook Inlet, with industrial-scale facilities at either end to handle the natural gas. As yet, construction work on the pipeline has yet to commence due to a lack of funding. 

The Alaska Department of Law, which represents the state in the case, did not have an immediate comment on the ruling.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.