Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation v. United States of America

Ninth Circuit

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation v. United States of America

746 F.2d 570, 84 Oil & Gas Rep. 29, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17088

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1984

Docket82-3678

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 746 F.2d 570 (Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation v. United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation v. United States of America, 746 F.2d 570, 84 Oil & Gas Rep. 29, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17088 (9th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, members of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, sued to enjoin oil development off the North Slope of Alaska in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

Appellants rest their suit primarily upon a claim of aboriginal title based upon centuries of occupancy and use of sea ice many miles from shore for subsistence hunting and fishing.

For reasons stated in People of the Village of Gambell v. Clark, 746 F.2d 572 (9th Cir.1984), argued and decided with this case, we hold that any aboriginal rights appellants may have had were extinguished by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1626.

We agree with the district court (Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. United States, 548 F.Supp. 182, 188 (D.Alaska 1982)), that appellants’ general trust claims are barred by collateral estoppel. See North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 611-13 (D.C.Cir.1980). See also California v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290, 1324-25 (D.C.Cir.1981).

We also reject appellants’ claim based upon the Final Act, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Helsinki, reprinted in 73 U.S.Dept. State Bull. 323 (1975) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A.Res. 2200, 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966). Assuming these international understandings are applicable, ap *572 pellants point to no provision of either that could be interpreted as imposing upon the United States a greater obligation to protect the subsistence culture of the Natives than that imposed upon the United States by federal domestic law — an obligation already satisfied. See North Slope Borough v. Andrus, supra. Nor have appellants made any showing of a universal recognition of such a greater obligation that would be necessary to establish a claim based on the law of nations. See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 881-84 (2d Cir.1980).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, members of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, sued to enjoin oil development off the North Slope of Alaska in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

Appellants rest their suit primarily upon a claim of aboriginal title based upon centuries of occupancy and use of sea ice many miles from shore for subsistence hunting and fishing.

For reasons stated in People of the Village of Gambell v. Clark, 746 F.2d 572 (9th Cir.1984), argued and decided with this case, we hold that any aboriginal rights appellants may have had were extinguished by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1626.

We agree with the district court (Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. United States, 548 F.Supp. 182, 188 (D.Alaska 1982)), that appellants’ general trust claims are barred by collateral estoppel. See North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 611-13 (D.C.Cir.1980). See also California v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290, 1324-25 (D.C.Cir.1981).

We also reject appellants’ claim based upon the Final Act, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Helsinki, reprinted in 73 U.S.Dept. State Bull. 323 (1975) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A.Res. 2200, 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966). Assuming these international understandings are applicable, ap *572 pellants point to no provision of either that could be interpreted as imposing upon the United States a greater obligation to protect the subsistence culture of the Natives than that imposed upon the United States by federal domestic law — an obligation already satisfied. See North Slope Borough v. Andrus, supra. Nor have appellants made any showing of a universal recognition of such a greater obligation that would be necessary to establish a claim based on the law of nations. See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 881-84 (2d Cir.1980).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

746 F.2d 570, 84 Oil & Gas Rep. 29, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inupiat-community-of-the-arctic-slope-and-ukpeagvik-inupiat-corporation-v-ca9-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack