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.
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.
Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with precedent of this Court and the D.C. Circuit, impermissibly narrowed a decades-old judicial decree so as to deprive Indiantribes of their ability to exercise treaty fishing rights.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.