U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2004

Eyak Native Village Chanega Native Village Nanwalek Native Village Port Graham Native Village Tatitlek Native Village v. William M. Daley Donald Evans

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 12, 2004 · No. 02-36155 · Schroeder, Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Kleinfeld, Hawkins, Thomas, Fletcher, Paez, Tallman, Rawlinson, Clifton

375 F.3d 1218; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14267; 2004 WL 1588113 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner, Anchorage, AK, for the appellants., David C. Shilton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the appellees.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Native Village of Eyak v. Gary Locke (9th Cir. 2012)
Virginia Duncan v. Rob Bonta (9th Cir. 2025)
Native Village of Eyak v. Gary Locke (9th Cir. 2012)
United States v. Sundeep Dharni (9th Cir. 2014)
Northern Mariana Islands v. United States (9th Cir. 2005)
CNMI v. United States (9th Cir. 2005)
Northern Mariana Islands v. United States (9th Cir. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

The district court decided the federal paramountcy question and thereby avoided determining the existence or extent of the plaintiff villages’ claimed aboriginal rights. As an appellate body, we would be greatly assisted by an initial determination by the district court of what aboriginal rights, if any, the villages have. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants. We REMAND with instructions that the district court decide what aboriginal rights to fish beyond'the three-mile limit, if any, the plaintiffs have. For purposes of this limited remand, the district court should assume that the villages’ aboriginal rights, if any, have not been abrogated by the federal paramountcy doctrine or other federal law.

The en banc panel retains jurisdiction over all future proceedings in this matter.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.