Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF ARCTIC SLOPE v. U.S., 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984)

INUPIAT Cmty. OF THE ARCTIC SLOPE & UKPEAGVIK INUPIAT Corp., ETAL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. United States, ET AL.,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES., 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-11-02
Topic
general

INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF ARCTIC SLOPE v. U.S., 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984) INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF THE ARCTIC SLOPE AND UKPEAGVIK INUPIAT CORPORATION, ETAL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. No. 82-3678.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Argued and Submitted October 7, 1983. Decided November 2, 1984.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF ARCTIC SLOPE v. U.S., 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF ARCTIC SLOPE v. U.S.,746 F.2d 570(9th Cir. 1984)
INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF THE ARCTIC SLOPE AND UKPEAGVIK INUPIAT CORPORATION, ET
AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 82-3678.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted October 7, 1983.
Decided November 2, 1984.
Page 571
Mason D. Morisset, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset, Ernstoff Chestnut, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kathryn A. Oberly, Asst. Sol. Gen., Brice M. Clagett, Covington Burling, Washington, D.C., R. Collin Middleton, Baenen, Timme, De Reitzes Middletown, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, HUG, Circuit Judge, and REEDfn*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] For reasons stated inPeople 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.

[4] We agree with the district court (Inupiat Community of theArctic 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).

[5] We also reject appellants' claim based upon the Final Act, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Helsinki,reprinted in73 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,Page 572appellants 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 Filartigav. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876, 881-84 (2d Cir. 1980).

[6] AFFIRMED.
  1. Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. ↩