Hynes, Regional Director, Fish & Wildlife Service v. Grimes Packing Co.
Headline: Government may include coastal waters in an Alaska Native reservation, but a regulation granting natives exclusive commercial fishing rights is invalid, protecting canneries while agencies rethink enforcement rules.
Holding:
- Affirms that reservation boundaries may include nearby coastal waters.
- Prevents White Act use to grant exclusive commercial fishing monopolies to a local group.
- Protects non-native canneries from exclusion while agencies rewrite rules.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved a government regional fisheries official and several Alaska canning companies who fished near the native village of Karluk. The Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order No. 128 designating land and waters (up to 3,000 feet from mean low tide) as a reservation for Karluk natives. The Secretary then added a regulation that closed those coastal waters to commercial fishing except for natives and persons licensed by the village. The canneries sued, and lower courts invalidated both the order and the regulation.
Reasoning
The Court first examined whether the 1936 law giving the Secretary power to designate Alaska reservations allowed inclusion of adjacent coastal waters. Relying on historical practice and earlier cases, the majority concluded the Secretary could include those waters in the reservation. The Court then reviewed the White Act rule authorizing fishing preserves but requiring regulations be of “general application” and forbidding exclusive rights. The Court held the regulation §208.23(r) was unlawful because it granted an exclusive commercial fishing privilege to the reservation occupants, which the White Act’s proviso forbids. The opinion noted reservation designations under §2 are temporary and subject to Congress or the President.
Real world impact
As a result, reservation waters can be set aside for native use, but the White Act cannot be used to create exclusive commercial monopolies for a small local group. The Court vacated the lower courts’ decrees, remanded for further proceedings, and gave the Interior Department thirty days to consider new arrangements; a preliminary injunction remains in force.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Rutledge (joined by Justices Black and Murphy) disagreed in part, arguing the White Act could be used to protect reservation waters and that the regulation should be upheld except possibly for delegation of licensing to the village.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?