Top Alaska court takes up lawsuit challenging trans-Alaska gas pipeline law

Lower court dismissed the case, and the Alaska Supreme Court has already ruled on a similar issue, but plaintiffs are trying again

Alaska’s natural gas pipeline would largely follow the route of the existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline, pictured here, from the North Slope. Near Fairbanks, the gas line would split off toward Anchorage, while the oil pipeline continues to the Prince William Sound community of Valdez. (David Houseknecht / U.S. Geological Survey)

By James Brooks

Alaska Beacon

The Alaska Supreme Court is considering whether to advance a lawsuit that claims the Alaska Constitution conflicts with a state law that directs construction of a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.

On Wednesday, the court’s justices — minus Chief Justice Susan Carney, who is recovering from surgery — heard oral arguments from plaintiffs who believe any pipeline built under the law would result in so much climate change that it would unconstitutionally degrade hunting and fishing opportunities.

A lower court dismissed the lawsuit in March 2025, but the dismissal was appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The court now needs to decide whether the issue is a political question for the Legislature or whether the project is so large and impactful that a legal challenge is justified.

The Alaska Department of Law, defending against the suit, has raised a number of arguments, including the notion that courts cannot redress climate change issues.

“This Court should hold that prudence requires dismissal of climate change lawsuits because courts cannot redress the injuries alleged,” state attorneys wrote.

The plaintiffs are a group of young Alaskans represented by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit that has supported climate-related lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country.

Four years ago, the Alaska Supreme Court narrowly rejected a similar lawsuit by an almost identical group of plaintiffs also represented by Our Children’s Trust.

That case was more general than the lawsuit considered Wednesday, which revolves around a specific law that directs the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. to build an 800-mile gas pipeline bracketed by a pair of industrial facilities.

Justice Dario Borghesan, an appointee of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, noted that, as yet, there is no firm plan to build a pipeline and the plain language of the statute doesn’t specifically call for a large project.

“Maybe I’m reading the statute wrong, but when I read the statute, it seems to allow for the possibility of some lesser pipeline to be built under this … that would have different climate impacts than the one you’re alleging,” he said.

Our Children’s Trust attorney Andrew Welle alluded to the cost of constructing an 800-mile pipeline, processing plant and liquefaction plant, implying that the cost of building the project in state law would require large shipments of gas.

“There’s no way to accomplish a project of that size without throughputting a massive amount of natural gas and resulting emissions that would harm these plaintiffs,” he said.

Alaska already produces greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to some developed Western countries, Welle said, and a large pipeline “would more than triple Alaska’s climate pollution at a time when these youth are already in a climate emergency.”

Attorney Laura Wolff, representing the state, said this case is the “same suit” as the previous cases considered by the Supreme Court.

Allowing the newest lawsuit to continue would take away from the Legislature’s constitutional power to balance competing interests, she said. It isn’t the courts’ responsibility to judge those issues, she argued.

Borghesan, presiding over Wednesday’s arguments, asked if there was any instance in which it would be appropriate for the court to chime in — then offered a hypothetical in which the Legislature authorized any state resident to kill an unlimited number of wolves and the state didn’t keep track of the numbers.

“I don’t know if I agree that when the policy is in legislation, there’s no sustained yield review,” he said, referring to state courts’ role.

Wolff, responding to that hypothetical, said she doesn’t want to say there’s never a role for court review, but “It’s hard to imagine, and it’s definitely not this case.”

The court took the case under advisement and will issue a written order later.

• James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.