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
7.
The ruling in the 1991 ████ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████████████ ██████ ██████ ███████████
a
A handicraft no ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███
Not quite. The reasons for the 1991 ruling involved the fact that the Alaska Natives were forced to stop their handicraft because of circumstances beyond their control. (A) doesn’t involve any circumstances beyond people’s control. It just says the handicraft was once practiced and then stopped. The timescale in (A) is also way off from the timescale in the 1991 case. In the 1991 case, the handicraft was practiced up until only a few hundred years ago (late 1700s). Since we don’t know what the 1991 ruling would have been if (1) the practice had stopped millennia ago and (2) there weren’t circumstances beyond people’s control, that ruling doesn’t make good precedent for (A).
b
A handicraft that ████████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████████
The 1991 ruling didn’t say that something counted as “traditional” if it involved hunting several endangered species. It said something counted as “traditional” if it was once common practice before being forced to stop.
c
A handicraft that ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████████
The 1991 ruling said that something counts as “traditional” if it was once common practice but then was forced to stop by extenuating circumstances in more recent history. (C) describes the same kind of scenario. So the 1991 ruling would be relevant as precedent for this case.
d
A handicraft about █████ ████ █ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
The 1991 ruling didn’t say that something counted as “traditional” if it involved a historically little-known practice. To the contrary, it said something counted as “traditional” if it was once common practice (and was then forced to stop).
e
A handicraft about █████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██
The 1991 ruling didn’t say that something counted as “traditional” if it simply isn’t common now. It said something counted as “traditional” if it was once common practice before being forced to stop. (E) doesn’t tell us whether the handicraft was once common or why it’s uncommon now, so the 1991 ruling isn’t relevant precedent here.