|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-269||9th Cir.||Apr 18, 2018||Jun 11, 2018||4-4||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether a treaty “right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens” guaranteed “that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a ‘moderate living’ to the tribes”; (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing the state's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850’s, for decades told the state to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violates the treaties it signed; and (3) whether the district court’s injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon, and plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.
Judgment: Affirmed by an equally divided court in a per curiam opinion on June 11, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 17 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 20, 2017)|
|Sep 15 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 20, 2017, for all respondents.|
|Sep 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of Business Home Building, Real Estate, Farming and Municipal Organizations filed.|
|Sep 20 2017||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Modoc Point Irrigation District, et al.|
|Sep 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of State of Idaho, et al. filed.|
|Oct 12 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 27, 2017, for all respondents.|
|Nov 27 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Nov 27 2017||Brief of respondents Suquamish Indian Tribe, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 11 2017||Reply of petitioner Washington filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 13 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.|
|Jan 08 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2018.|
|Jan 12 2018||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Modoc Point Irrigation District, et al. GRANTED.|
|Jan 12 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 17 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Washington|
|Feb 23 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 18, 2018.|
|Feb 24 2018||Brief of petitioner Washington filed.|
|Feb 24 2018||Joint appendix (3 Volumes) filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Mar 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of States of Idaho, et al. filed.|
|Mar 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Mar 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Modoc Point Irrigation District, et al. filed.|
|Mar 05 2018||Brief amici curiae of Business, Home Building, Real Estate, Farming and Municipal Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 05 2018||Brief amici curiae of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 05 2018||Brief amici curiae of American Forest & Paper Association and National Mining Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 05 2018||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Washington State Association of Counties and Association of Washington Cities. (Distributed)|
|Mar 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 19 2018||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Washington State Association of Counties and Association of Washington Cities GRANTED.|
|Mar 23 2018||Letter from Clerk of Court to counsel of record noting that Justice Kennedy will not continue to participate in this case.|
|Mar 26 2018||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 26 2018||Brief of respondents Suquamish Indian Tribe, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 30 2018||Record request from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Mar 30 2018||Brief amici curiae of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of The National Congress of American Indians; Navajo Nation; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Washington State and Local Officials (Current and Former) filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 02 2018||Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents.|
|Apr 02 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Apr 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, et al filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 02 2018||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 02 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Hon. Daniel J. Evans filed (corrected filing). (Distributed)|
|Apr 09 2018||Reply of petitioner Washington filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 13 2018||Joint motion of respondents for divided argument GRANTED. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Apr 18 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Noah Purcell, Washington State Solicitor General, Olympia, Wash. For respondent United States: Allon Kedem, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents Suquamish Indian Tribe, et al.: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 11 2018||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED by an equally divided Court. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jul 13 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.