Intro

Imagine the distress of discovering that the government was trying to keep you off your own property. Picture the frustration of decades spent enjoying your land’s freedom, only to face a sudden government decree that it’s no longer at your disposal. Envision the disbelief as the government tries to rewrite its agreement with you to impose new access fees on land you’ve long owned.  

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario—it’s the harsh reality for members of the Flying Crown subdivision near Anchorage, Alaska. This community, a haven for numerous pilots drawn by its adjacency to the neighboring airstrip, is grappling with these very challenges. The subdivision has taken the state-owned Alaska Railroad Corporation to court in hopes of ending what amounts to a state-sponsored shakedown. But the subdivision is not alone—many landowners along the 650-mile railroad have suffered from the overreach. And we at Mountain States have stepped in to help several Alaskans for Property Rights in asking the Supreme Court to review the case. 

Case Background

It all began in the early 1900s, when numerous private companies emerged to construct railroads in Alaska following the Klondike Gold Rush. Recognizing the importance of reliable railway travel for the region’s commercial development, Congress passed the Alaska Railroad Act of 1914. The Act authorized the President to establish a federal railroad in Alaska, spanning up to 1,000 miles, and to acquire necessary rights of way. The result became the Alaska Railroad. 

The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), a state-operated corporation tasked with managing railway systems throughout Alaska, has long maintained an easement spanning the Alaska Railroad, including running through the Flying Crown subdivision and a portion of the subdivision’s airstrip. While the railroad crosses over several homeowners’ properties, it cannot prohibit homeowners from using the easement for aviation-related activities. Elsewhere along the Alaska Railroad, the easement similarly prevents local landowners from interfering with the operation of the railroad, but it does not give the ARRC the authority to prevent local landowners from using and enjoying their own properties.  

For decades, Flying Crown landowners freely used their properties for aviation purposes without conflict with the railroad. The coexistence between Flying Crown and the ARRC abruptly ended in 2020 when the ARRC sought to quiet title to the right-of-way across Flying Crown’s property; but as the Alaskans for Property Rights know too well, the ARRC has been strongarming other local property owners for at least the past decade. In Flying Crown’s case, a federal district judge agreed with the ARRC stating that the easement is exclusive. This means that the railroad could prevent a use that property owners have had for decades.  

The Flying Crown Subdivision Property Owners Association, represented by our friends at Pacific Legal Foundation, has filed an appeal challenging the lower court’s decision in an effort to stop the overreach of ARRC. Mountain States joined the fight by filing an amicus brief for members of Alaskans for Property Rights asking the Supreme Court to hear this case and address what kind of easement was granted. This case gives Mountain States and these Alaskans a chance to comment and influence the future of American citizens’ property rights.  

Join the Fight

Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.

Donate Now

In our amicus brief, we strongly rebut ARRC’s position stating, “Power hungry and enabled by the lower court’s misinterpretation of the law, the Alaska Railroad Corporation will increasingly and eagerly extort Alaska property owners like these Alaskans for Property Rights.”   

It is our paramount objective for the Court to affirm that the easement granted to ARRC by the federal government is not exclusive-use. Such a ruling would stop ARRC from keeping landowners off their land or levying exorbitant charges on the property owners who insist on using their own lands.   

What’s at Stake?

The crux of this matter lies in whether the government can unilaterally re-write its agreement with landowners who have granted it an easement over their private property. In this instance, the re-write would either kick the landowner off the property or charge the landowner an exorbitant fee to continue using his property. This case carries profound implications: 

• For our clients, it signifies being unjustly deprived of access to their rightful lands and burdened with unwarranted charges for the mere use of their own property. 
   
• For all Americans, it has the potential to set a perilous precedent wherein government actors could wield unchecked authority to change the terms of their contracts at will, regardless of the other party’s consent, across the territories they traverse. This could empower them to levy fees upon landowners for accessing their own land, undermining the very foundation of property rights.