Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn

3 Citing briefs

  1. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Jewell et al

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed September 15, 2016

    In a similar context, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the “moderate standard of living” secured by tribal reserved fishing rights as one guaranteeing Indians a “livelihood” from a meaningful fishery, recognizing the historical abundance of the fishery and dependence on those resources by the Tribes; the relative stability and predictability of anadromous fish runs, analogizing the ability to harvest fish to more traditional “crops”; and the perception that the Tribes were unlikely to perceive their reserved fishing rights as “merely the chance . . . to dip their nets into the territorial waters.” Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 663-66, 674-85 (1979). In the thirty years following its construction, the TRD diverted an average of 68 percent of the Trinity River’s flows to the CVP, imposing “what was essentially extreme drought conditions” on the Trinity River’s fish and wildlife populations.3 Westlands, 376 F.3d at 862.

  2. Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland General Electric Company

    Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 19 and Joinder to Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon's Motion to Dismiss. Oral Argument requested.Expedited Hearing requested.

    Filed March 21, 2018

    ...2, 13 Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530 (1st Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................14 PGE & Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, 119 FERC ¶ 62006 (2007) .................................................................................................15, 17 S.C. Elec. & Gas Co., 108 FERC ¶ 61064 (2004) .......................................................................................................16 Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................11 Symbiotics, LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 62153 (2017) .......................................................................................................17 United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................14 Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) .................................................................................................................12 Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) .................................................................................................................14 Case 3:16-cv-01644-SI Document 74 Filed 03/21/18 Page 3 of 22 Page iii - PGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND JOINDER TO TRIBE’S MOTION 96350442.1 0032758-00173 Statutes 16 U.S.C. § 799 ..............................................................................................................................13 16 U.S.C. § 823b(a) .......................................................................................................................16 16 U.S.C. § 823b(b)(c) ...................................................................................................................16 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) .........................................................................................

  3. O Centro Espirita, et al v. Reno, et al

    MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER:

    Filed February 25, 2002

    In Rupert v. Director, U.S. Fish and Case 1:00-cv-01647-JAP-RLP Document 86 Filed 02/25/02 Page 16 of 24 17 Wildlife Service, 957 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1992), the First Circuit offered this explanation for employing a rational basis test to evaluate the constitutionality of an exemption, under the Bald Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 668, for Indian tribes’ religious use of eagle feathers: In a series of equal protection cases involving laws attacked as treating Native Americans in ways that created racial classifications, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that the peculiar semisovereign and constitutionally recognized status of Indians justifies special treatment on their behalf when rationally related to the Government’s ‘unique obligation toward the Indians.’” Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 673 n. 20, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 3068 n. 20, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) (emphasis added and citation omitted). See also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645-46, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 1398, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (upholding federal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans on reservations); Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U.S. 463, 479-81, 96 S.Ct. 1634, 1644-45, 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976) (striking down state’s attempt to tax property and sales on reservation); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554, 94 S.Ct. at 2484-85 (upholding statute and regulation that gave preference to Native Americans in hiring and promotions at Bureau of Indian Affairs.)