Case Name: Katie JOHN; Doris Charles; Mentasta Village Council; Alaska Federation of Natives, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America; Gale A. Norton, in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior; Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; and Daniel Demientieff, Niles Cesar, Fran Cherry, Robert Barbee, Dave Allen, and Rick Cables, in their capacities as members of the Federal Subsistence Board, Defendants-Appellees, and State of Alaska and Frank Rue, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-07
Citations: 247 F.3d 1032
Docket Number: No. 00-35121
Parties: Katie JOHN; Doris Charles; Mentasta Village Council; Alaska Federation of Natives, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America; Gale A. Norton, in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior; Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; and Daniel Demientieff, Niles Cesar, Fran Cherry, Robert Barbee, Dave Allen, and Rick Cables, in their capacities as members of the Federal Subsistence Board, Defendants-Appellees, and State of Alaska and Frank Rue, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, HAWKINS, TASHIMA, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 247
Pages: 1032–1051

Head Matter:
Katie JOHN; Doris Charles; Mentasta Village Council; Alaska Federation of Natives, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America; Gale A. Norton, in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior; Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; and Daniel Demientieff, Niles Cesar, Fran Cherry, Robert Barbee, Dave Allen, and Rick Cables, in their capacities as members of the Federal Subsistence Board, Defendants-Appellees, and State of Alaska and Frank Rue, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 00-35121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Initial En Banc Hearing Argued and Submitted Dec. 20, 2000
Filed May 7, 2001
Joanne M. Grace, Assistant Attorney General, State of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, for the defendants-appellants.
Heather Kendall Miller, Anchorage, Alaska and William E. Caldwell, Fairbanks, Alaska, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellees.
Rebecca S. Copeland, Koval & Featherly, P.C., Anchorage, Alaska, Steven W. Strack, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, Idaho, Robert S. Pelcyger, Fredericks, Pelcyger & Hester, LLC, Louisville, Colorado, William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, Colorado, Howard E. Shapiro, Washington, DC, David S. Case, P.C., Anchorage, Robert C. Erwin and Robert C. Erwin, Erwin & Erwin, Anchorage, Alaska, Paul A. Lenzi-ni, Alexandria, Virginia, and Jerome C. Muys, Washington, DC, for the amici curiae.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, HAWKINS, TASHIMA, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
. Gale A. Norton is substituted for her predecessor, Bruce E. Babbitt, as Secretary of the Interior.
. Ann M. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor, Daniel Glickman, as Secretary of Agriculture.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM Opinion; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge TALLMAN; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI; Special Statement by Judge RYMER.
PER CURIAM:
Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir.1995) (en banc rehearing denied Aug. 8, 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1036, 116 S.Ct. 690, 133 L.Ed.2d 594 (1996), 517 U.S. 1187, 116 S.Ct. 1672, 134 L.Ed.2d 776 (1996), and cert. denied sub nom. Alaska Federation of Natives v. United States, 517 U.S. 1187, 116 S.Ct. 1672, 134 L.Ed.2d 776 (1996). A majority of the active judges voted to hear the appeal en banc rather than by a three-judge panel. The en banc court has now reviewed the briefs and heard oral argument on this appeal. A majority of the en banc court has determined that the judgment rendered by the prior panel, and adopted by the district court, should not be disturbed or altered by the en banc court.
AFFIRMED.