Opinion ID: 3217620
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Federalism Principles

Text: Washington contends, based on the four specific objections just reviewed, that the district court’s injunction violates principles of federalism. Washington asserts four principles of federalism: First, the remedy must be no broader than necessary to address the federal law violation. UNITED STATES V. WASHINGTON 57 Second, courts must grant deference to a state’s institutional competence and subject matter expertise. Third, courts must take cost into consideration and not substitute their budgetary judgment for that of the state. And finally, relief must be fashioned so that it is the least intrusive into state governmental affairs. The district court’s injunction here contravenes all of these principles. Blue Brief at 49. We will not quarrel here with these principles, stated at this level of generality. However, for the reasons given above, we have concluded that the district court’s injunction violates none of them. Further, a federalism-based objection to an injunction enforcing Indian treaty rights should not be viewed in the same light as an objection to a more conventional structural injunction. Washington cites two Supreme Court cases in support of its federalism objection — Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (structural injunction requiring reform of the Philadelphia police department), and Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (structural injunctions requiring Arizona to comply with Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974). However, Washington fails to cite the Supreme Court case directly on point — Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) — in which the Court affirmed detailed injunctions requiring Washington to comply with the very Treaties at issue in this case. The district court in Fishing Vessel had entered a series of detailed injunctions implementing its holding that the Treaties entitled the Tribes to take up to fifty percent of harvestable salmon in any given year. Washington strenuously resisted, 58 UNITED STATES V. WASHINGTON with the result that the district court effectively took over much of the State’s management of the salmon fishery. Washington objected both to the district court’s interpretation of the Treaties, and to the court’s intrusion into its affairs. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s holding on the meaning of the Treaties. It then rejected, in no uncertain terms, federalism-based objections to the injunctions enforcing the Treaties: Whether [Washington] Game and Fisheries may be ordered actually to promulgate regulations having effect as a matter of state law may well be doubtful. But the District Court may prescind that problem by assuming direct supervision of the fisheries if state recalcitrance or state-law barriers should be continued. It is therefore absurd to argue . . . both that the state agencies may not be ordered to implement the decree and also that the District Court may not itself issue detailed remedial orders as a substitute for state supervision. Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. at 695 (emphasis added).