Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action.
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by applying issue preclusion to hold that Snoqualmie was not a party to the Treaty even though the Executive Branch expressly recognizes Snoqualmie as a Treaty party.
Sauk-Suiattle fishermen on the Skagit River in 1985. The location was near Mount Vernon, Washington, and it was known as Sauk Camp because of the large number of Sauk-Suiattle boats that were kept there.
Delegation representing 20,000 Californian Indians meeting with Senator Hiram Johnson: Photograph shows a delegation of eight Native American men from California representing 300 tribes and bands of Californian Indians meeting with Senator Johnson during visit to Congress to petition them to honor the Lost Treaties of 1851 and 1852; delegation members include Alfred C. Gillis (Wintun), Thomas H. Billings (Scotts Valley), Harrison Diaz (Paiute), William Fuller (Me-Wuk), Frank Isles (Klamath), Stephen Night (Ukiah), Albert Wilder (Central Klamath). [LOC]
Artwork on water towers along a remote Arizona road leading to Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park, a red-sand desert region on the Arizona-Utah border known for the towering sandstone buttes [LOC]
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.