Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe is a signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855. The Executive Branch has repeatedly confirmed Snoqualmie’s status as a Treaty signatory entitled to exercise Treaty rights, and Congress has never abrogated the rights reserved by Snoqualmie and promised by the United States in the Treaty. Longstanding precedent from this Court, rooted in the text and structure of the Constitution, recognizes two central tenets of Indian law: (1) only Congress possesses the power to abrogate Indian treaty rights; and (2) the Judiciary only has the authority to interpret Indian treaty rights—not unilaterally to abrogate an Indian treaty absent congressional action. Thus, when courts must determine whether an Indian treaty right has been abrogated, they may look only to the Acts of Congress. In this case, the Ninth Circuit erroneously extended a holding in United States v. Washington applicable to off-reservation Treaty fishing rights, through the discretionary doctrine of issue preclusion, to abrogate all of Snoqualmie’s Treaty rights, without congressional action. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the federal courts have the constitutional authority to unilaterally abrogate all rights guaranteed to an Indian tribe under a treaty with the United States absent congressional action. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by applying issue preclusion to hold that Snoqualmie was not a party to the Treaty even though the Executive Branch expressly recognizes Snoqualmie as a Treaty party.