|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.