Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
It's only opportunity if it includes a reasonable chance of catching fish. Just like the SCOTUS said that treaty fishing rights are meaningless if there are no fish in the water to catch. Which appears to be the direction we're heading, even for many of the tribes. SCOTUS may have to re-address this issue soon if the U&A become functionally fishless.


The Boldt II decision went to the SCOTUS a couple years back. It ended with a 4-4 tie when Justice Kennedy recused himself since he voted against the Tribes when this issue came up at the 9th Circuit court, back when he was a Circuit court judge. A 4-4 tie meant that the original decision from the 9th Circuit stands, but only for the 9th Circuit territory (nine Western States which include 15 District courts).

But if Justice Kennedy had participated in the decision, the Tribes likely would have lost the case. The Tribes are well aware of that. My sense is that they may no longer see the SCOTUS as a reliable path to adjudicating their issues. As such, they will likely avoid going to the SCOTUS for anything.


Edited by cohoangler (03/02/21 10:52 AM)