Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Who Can Defend A Federal Regulation? The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Rule 24 By Denying Intervention Of Right In Kootenai Tribe Of Idaho V. Veneman, Stephanie D. Matheny
Who Can Defend A Federal Regulation? The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Rule 24 By Denying Intervention Of Right In Kootenai Tribe Of Idaho V. Veneman, Stephanie D. Matheny
Washington Law Review
In Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit misapplied Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by denying intervention of right to organizations that had protectable interests in the adoption and implementation of the Roadless Rule. The court based its decision to deny intervention of right on its federal defendant rule, which bars intervention of right by parties other than the federal government to defend a challenge brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Kootenai decision extended the reach of the federal defendant rule to include …
Abrogation Or Regulation? How Anderson V. Evans Discards The Makah's Treaty Whaling Right In The Name Of Conservation Necessity, Zachary Tomlinson
Abrogation Or Regulation? How Anderson V. Evans Discards The Makah's Treaty Whaling Right In The Name Of Conservation Necessity, Zachary Tomlinson
Washington Law Review
From 1787 to 1871, the federal government and various Indian tribes entered into hundreds of treaties. Under well-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. Congress has plenary authority to abrogate or modify any of these treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court is reluctant to find congressional intent to do so, however, and requires that this intent be clear and plain. States have no such power to qualify treaties, but the Court has allowed states to regulate treaty rights when doing so is necessary for species conservation. While the U.S. Supreme Court has kept these two lines of cases distinct, the U.S. …
Applicant In Intervention - Appellant Samish Indian Tribe's Reply Brief
Applicant In Intervention - Appellant Samish Indian Tribe's Reply Brief
United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))
No abstract provided.
Answering Brief For The United States
Answering Brief For The United States
United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))
No abstract provided.
Tribal Appellees' Brief
United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))
No abstract provided.
Aboriginal Title Or The Paramountcy Doctrine? Johnson V. Mcintosh Flounders In Federal Waters Off Alsaka In Native Village Of Eyak V. Trawler Diane Marie, Inc., Andrew P. Richards
Aboriginal Title Or The Paramountcy Doctrine? Johnson V. Mcintosh Flounders In Federal Waters Off Alsaka In Native Village Of Eyak V. Trawler Diane Marie, Inc., Andrew P. Richards
Washington Law Review
In Johnson v. McIntosh and its progeny, the United States Supreme Court established the principle that aboriginal title allows Indian tribes to exclusively use and occupy their territories after they come under United States sovereignty. In Native Village of Eyak v. Trawler Diane Marie, Inc., five Alaska Native villages asserted aboriginal title to areas of the seabed and ocean off Alaska. The villages argued that federal fisheries regulations violate their aboriginal title by allowing non-Natives to fish within those areas, while excluding most of the villagers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the villages' …
Applicant In Intervention - Appellant Samish Indian Tribe's Opening Brief
Applicant In Intervention - Appellant Samish Indian Tribe's Opening Brief
United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005))
No abstract provided.