Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and tribal sovereign immunity deprived the lower courts of subject-matter jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and tribal sovereign immunity deprived the lower courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe’s claim, requiring dismissal on that ground under United States Supreme Court precedent including Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1996). 2. Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) and Sinochem Int? Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), an issue preclusion dismissal is a merits dismissal and excluded from the threshold grounds among which a federal court may choose to dismiss a case before establishing its subject-matter jurisdiction. 3. Whether, under United States Supreme Court precedent including Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), jurisdictional issues in this case were not “arduous” or “difficult to determine” because the lower courts could readily determine that they lacked jurisdiction, such that those courts committed reversible error in bypassing determination of their subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeding to dismiss the case instead with prejudice on issue preclusion grounds. ii PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS This proceeding was initiated by the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, which was the plaintiff in the district court and an appellant in the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner Samish Indian Nation intervened in the district court after a judgment was issued, solely for purposes of appeal, and filed its own appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The two appeals were consolidated. Respondents are the State of Washington, Washington Governor Jay Robert Inslee, and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind; Respondents were defendants in the district court and appellees in the Ninth Circuit.