Here.
Grist: “Do salmon have rights?”
treaty rights
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Upper Skagit v. Sauk-Suiattle [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 20-01]
Here:
220429 Answer Brief of Appellees Upper Skagit
220429 Answer Brief of Intervenor-PL-Appellee Swinomish
Samish Indian Nation v. Washington Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
- Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and tribal sovereign immunity deprived the lower courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe’s claim, requiring dismissal on that ground under United States Supreme Court precedent including Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1996).
- Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) and Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), an issue preclusion dismissal is a merits dismissal and excluded from the threshold grounds among which a federal court may choose to dismiss a case before establishing its subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), jurisdictional issues in this case were not “arduous” or “difficult to determine” because the lower courts could readily determine that they lacked jurisdiction, such that those courts committed reversible error in bypassing determination of their subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeding to dismiss the case instead with prejudice on issue preclusion grounds.
Lower court materials here.
Idaho Federal Court Dismisses Northwestern Shoshone Hunting Rights Claim
Here are the materials in Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation v. State of Idaho (D. Idaho):
Eighth Circuit Rejects MHA Nation Citizens’ Voting Rights Suit
Washington SCT Decides Wild Fish Conservancy v. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Here.
Briefs:
- Appellants Opening Brief
- Respondent Cooke Aquaculture Pacific Brief
- Respondent Washington Department Fish & Wildlife Corrected Response Brief
- Appellants Reply Brief
- Amicus – Jamestown S’klallam Tribe
- Amicus Washington State Department of Ecology
- Amicus – Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
- Appellants’ Answer to Amicus
- Appellants Answer to Amicus Washington State Department of Ecology
- WDFW’s Answer to Amicus Swinomish Indian Tribal Communitys
- Respondent Answer to Amicus Swinomish Indian Tribal
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Swinomish v. Lummi [US v. Washington subproceeding 19-01]
Here:
Lower court materials here.
The dispute involves waters somewhere in . . . here:
Answer Briefs here:
State Court Dismisses Charges Against Hazen Shopbell, Anthony Paul On Treaty Grounds
Here are the materials in State v. Shopbell (Wash. Super. Ct.):
7. CrR 8.3(b) Motion to Dismiss for Governmental Misconduct
11. Memo In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Bad Faith
13. CrR 8.3(c) Motion to Dismiss
29. Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Suppress Evidence and or Dismiss
30. Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss
38. Supplemental Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss
42. Motion for Bill of Particulars
46. Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars
52. Joint Reply In Support of Motion for Bill of Particulars
63. Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c)
66. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Dismiss per CrR 8.3
68. Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss
69. Response to Pretrial Dismissal Motions
70. Reply on Pretrial Dismissal Motions
There was no written ruling, but from the bench the Judge explained:
“My decision is consistent with the heart of the Treaty & Rafeedie Consent Decree, preserving Treaty rights that were gained many years ago. This court shouldn’t be involved in those issues.”
Wyoming Appellate Court Orders Hearing in Herrera Matter; State Appeals to State SCT
Here is the opinion in Herrera v. State of Wyoming:
State SCT cert stage briefs:
ResponseObjection – Petition for review
Prior post here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.