June in Bristol Bay, Alaska is supposed to be about fish. Not fights in court.
But last week, at the height of the world’s largest wild salmon run, advocates had to leave their fishing boats, subsistence sites, and businesses for the courtroom of the U.S. District Court for Alaska in Anchorage.
Why? Because the Pebble Limited Partnership, the foreign-owned mining corporation behind the proposed Pebble Mine, continues to fight relentlessly to dismantle the safeguards currently blocking the project.
New Round in a Long Fight
Pebble Limited Partnership and the State of Alaska launched a sweeping legal attack on the EPA’s Clean Water Act 404(c) final determination, which prevents them from discharging mine waste into the headwaters of Bristol Bay.
The EPA’s final determination is based on 13 years of comprehensive science that consistently points to the same conclusion: Pebble Mine would cause “unacceptable adverse effects” to Bristol Bay’s fishery and the $2.2 billion in annual economic activity and 15,000 American jobs that it supports.
For more than two decades, Trout Unlimited has worked to secure durable safeguards for Bristol Bay. Since 2015, TU has been represented pro bono by Sheppard Mullin, whose attorneys have been instrumental in ensuring that the Clean Water Act ruling was defended despite relentless pressure from Pebble and its allies.
Inside the June 25 Hearing
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska heard oral arguments from Pebble Limited Partnership, the State of Alaska, the Environmental Protection Agency, and intervenors. Intervenors, including Trout Unlimited, represent a diverse coalition of Tribal, economic, and environmental stakeholders.
The hearing lasted 2.5 hours and focused on a central question: Was the EPA justified in its decision to enact Clean Water Act safeguards, or was its decision “arbitrary and capricious,” as Pebble claims?
Pebble’s attorneys denied the fact their proposed mine would have devastating impacts on the fishery, despite their mine plan being vetoed for destroying 8.5 miles of salmon streams, 91 miles of additional streams that support salmon streams, and over 2,000 acres of wetlands that support salmon streams. They also doubled down on their claim that only 27 spawning coho salmon were found in the proposed mine footprint. A claim EPA attorney Laura Brown deemed “absurd.”
The State of Alaska focused its testimony on states’ rights. The State continues to support this mine even though 95% of Alaskans say protecting Bristol Bay is important.
Pebble attorneys even went so far as to say the commercial fishery causes more damage to fish than their proposed mine would… EPA attorney, Laura Brown cut through that claim with a simple comparison: it’s the difference between picking apples versus cutting down the trees and paving over the orchard.
What We Know & What’s Next
Judge Sharon Gleason has indicated that a decision is expected “in the near term” and commented that arguments made were “very thorough.” We’ll share updates the moment we have them. No matter the verdict, here’s what is unmistakably clear:
The Pebble Limited Partnership and its allies are still pushing harder than ever to build their mine. Yet the opposition, from fishermen, Tribes, businesses, and millions of Alaskans and Americans, is stronger than ever.
A resource this special is worth defending. It will take all of us to continue to show up, on the water, in the courtroom, and everywhere in between, until the threat of large-scale mining in Bristol Bay is gone for good. Consider a donation, pledge your support for long-term safeguards, and give us a follow on Instagram or Facebook to get the latest updates.
Save Brisol Bay
Together, we must do all we can to advance durable, long-term Safeguards for bristol bay