# John v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2001 · 247 F.3d 1032

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6996410

## Case

- **Full name:** Katie JOHN Doris Charles Mentasta Village Council Alaska Federation of Natives 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, and State of Alaska and Frank Rue, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 7, 2001
- **Citations:** 247 F.3d 1032; 2001 WL 474127
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Graber, Hawkins, Kozinski, McKeown, Reinhardt, Rymer, Scannlain, Schroeder, Tallman, Tashima
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6996410

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that ANILCA must be given “the breadth and scope sufficient to achieve Congress’s express purpose”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6996410. Public record. Not legal advice.