Anti-supported. The court disagreed with the FWS’s narrow interpretation. Their decision to reject that narrow interpretation was based on testimony about how Alaska Natives had previously been using sea otters. This is what (E) says.

Unstated. The court wasn’t worried about how to interpret “within living memory.” Its problem was that “within living memory” was a bad basis for deciding whether to consider something “traditional.” The court’s decision was to allow something to count as traditional even if it wasn’t practiced within living memory. And it based this decision on testimony about how Alaska Natives had previously been using sea otters before living memory. That’s the basis that (E) correctly refers to.

Unstated. As far as we can tell, the intent of FWS regulations was simply to lay out what counted as authentic native articles. So (C) effectively says that the court’s reason for expanding what counted as authentic native articles was just the desire to strictly define what counted as authentic native articles. This wasn’t the court’s reason. Its reason was that, according to testimony, Alaska Natives had previously been using sea otters before living memory.

Unstated. The court’s decision wasn’t based on a new interpretation of the treaty; it was just based on a different interpretation of the term “traditional.”

Stated. The court based its decision on testimony about how Alaska Natives had previously been using sea otters until they were stopped by circumstances beyond their control.