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 ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.