Self-study
P1
In Alaska, tradition is a powerful legal concept, appearing in a wide variety of legal contexts relating to natural-resource and public-lands activities. ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ █████ █████ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████████ █████ ████████
Problem ·
Failure to define "tradition" in statutes
Statutes in Alaska fail to define "tradition," which leads to problematic and inconsistent results.
P2
███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████████ █████████ █████ ███████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ █████████ ███
Common legal understanding of "tradition" ·
Must be based on "long-standing" practice
"Long-standing" in terms of time, but also in continuity and regularity of a practice.
Examples of problem ·
Two court cases involving indigenous use of sea otter pelts
P3
███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███
Context for the two court cases ·
Between 1910 and 1972, natives couldn't hunt sea otters
In 1972, a statute was passed allowing natives to hunt, but only for use in making authentic native articles by means of "traditional native handicrafts."
Additional context ·
Government agency didn't consider items made from sea otter pelts to be authentic native articles
This is because these items weren't made "within living memory." (Recall that sea otter hunting was prohibited for natives between 1910 and 1972.)
P4
██ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███
First court case ·
Government agency's interpretation was upheld
Second court case ·
Government agency's interpretation overturned
Court heard testimony showing that before Alaska was occupied, natives had used sea otters for many things. This showed that making stuff out of sea otter pelts was "traditional." The gov agency's interpretation of "traditional" was too narrow.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
2.
The court in the 1991 ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████ ██
a
ignored the ways ██ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████████
Unstated. The court’s reasons for disagreeing with the FWS’s interpretation weren’t about how Alaska Natives historically interpreted “traditional.” In fact, the passage doesn’t discuss how Alaska Natives interpreted “traditional.” (We just know that at least two Alaska Natives weren’t happy about having their handiwork seized.) The court’s reasons were entirely about how the FWS interpreted “traditional”: it was
b
was not consonant ████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █████████████
Unstated. The court’s view had nothing to do with dictionary definitions; it was all about what a reasonable legal interpretation of “traditional” should be.
c
was inconsistent with ████ ███ ████ █████████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████
Stated. The court said that the FWS’s interpretation
d
led the FWS ██ ███ ███ ████ █████████████ ██ ████████ █ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ████
Anti-supported. The opposite is true. In the court’s view, the FWS didn’t consider something “traditional” that, in fact, should have been considered “traditional.”
e
failed to specify █████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████████
Unstated. The FWS did specify this, and the court didn’t suggest otherwise. What the court disagreed with was how the FWS went about deciding what didn’t qualify.