Washington v. US (17-269)
Question
Does the "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens" under a treaty guarantee "that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a 'moderate living' to the tribes"?
Did the district court err in dismissing the state's defense that the federal government's instructions for designing the culverts violated the treaties to which the state was a signatory?
Does the district court’s injunction violate principles of federalism and comity by requiring the state to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when the plaintiff Tribes have not showed a clear connection between culvert replacement and the supply of tribal fisheries?
Petitioner: State of Washington
Respondent: United States of America, et al.
Granted: 2018-01-12 00:00:00
Decided: 2018-06-11 00:00:00
Argued: 2018-04-18 11:06:00
Uploaded: 2018-04-22 16:51:00
Advocates: Noah Purcell, William M. Jay, Allon Kedem
Links: Oyez | Opinion | Youtube
Tags: Tribal Treaties and Relations
