WASHINGTON, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES, et al.
No. 17-269.
Supreme Court of the United States
June 11, 2018.
Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Noah G. Purcell, Solicitor General, Fronda C. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Jay D. Geck, Anne E. Egeler, Deputy Solicitors General, Olympia, WA, for Petitioner.
Kevin P. Martin, Tucker DeVoe, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, William M. Jay, Brian T. Burgess, Jaime A. Santos, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, for Tribal Respondents.
Riyaz A. Kanji, Kanji & Katzen, PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, John C. Sledd, Jane G. Steadman, Kanji & Katzen, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Respondents the Hoh Tribe, the Jamestown, S'Klallam Tribe, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Nisqually Tribe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam, Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Suquamish Tribe.
Mary Neil, Office of The Reservation Attorney, Lummi Nation, Bellingham, WA, James R. Sigel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Deanne E. Maynard, Brian R. Matsui, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent the Lummi Nation.
Thomas Zeilman, Law Offices of Thomas Zeilman, Yakima, WA, for Respondent the Confederated Tribes, and Bands of the Yakama Nation.
Craig Dorsay, Lea Ann Easton, Dorsay & Easton, LLP, Portland, OR, for Respondent the Hoh Tribe.
Brian Gruber, Ziontz Chestnut, Seattle, WA, for Respondent the Makah Tribe.
Alan C. Stay, Ann E. Tweedy, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Office of The Tribal Attorney, Auburn, WA, for Respondent the Muckleshoot Tribe.
Maryanne Mohan, Office of The Tribal Attorney, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Olympia, WA, for Respondent the Nisqually Tribe.
Lauren Rasmussen, Law Offices of Lauren P. Rasmussen, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Respondents the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribe.
Steve Suagee, Sam Hough, Tribal Attorneys' Office, Lower Elwha, Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA, for Respondent the Lower Elwha, Klallam Tribe.
Connie Sue Martin, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle, WA, for Respondent the Nooksack Tribe.
Eric Nielsen, Nielsen, Broman & Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Respondent the Quinault Indian Nation.
Earle David Lees, Tribal Attorney, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Skokomish Nation, WA, for Respondent the Skokomish Tribe.
Kevin R. Lyon, Squaxin Island, Legal Department, Shelton, WA, for Respondent the Squaxin Island Tribe.
Samuel J. Stiltner, John Howard Bell, Tribal Attorneys, Puyallup Indian Tribe, Tacoma, WA, Harry R. Sachse, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent the Puyallup Tribe.
Timothy J. Filer, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Respondent the Quileute Tribe.
Scott Owen Mannakee, Tribal Attorney, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Arlington, WA, for Respondent the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.
David Hawkins, Office of The Tribal Attorney, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Wooley, WA, for respondent the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.
Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., Tyler L. Farmer, Kristin Ballinger, Danielson Harrigan, Leyh & Tollefson, LLP, Seattle, WA, for respondent the Upper Skagit Tribe.
James Rittenhouse Bellis, Suquamish Tribe Legal Department, Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA, for Respondent the Suquamish Tribe.
Emily Hutchinson Haley, Tribal Attorney, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, La Conner, WA, for Respondent the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.
Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & Somerville, Seattle, WA, for Respondent the Tulalip Tribes.
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Allon Kedem, Assistant to the Solicitor General, William B. Lazarus, Vanessa Boyd Willard, Evelyn S. Ying, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the United States.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice KENNEDY took no part in the decision of this case.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Criminal Procedure Civil Rights First Amendment Due Process Privacy Attorneys Unions Economic Activity Judicial Power Federalism Interstate Relations Federal Taxation Miscellaneous Private Action