October Term 2017 · Docket 17-269

Does a federal treaty require Washington to fix all fish-blocking culverts immediately?

Washington argues the Ninth Circuit order forces immediate, costly repairs. The United States says the treaty demands effective salmon access now.

Official caption
Washington v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Noah Purcell argued Washington voluntarily spent billions to protect salmon.

    Purcell claimed the Ninth Circuit announced an unworkable treaty right.

    Purcell urged the Court to review specific joint appendix paragraphs.

    Jay Kedem argued the treaty promised federal protection for fishing rights.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on the scope of a federal treaty right to fish. Washington claims the lower court order is unworkable. The United States asserts the treaty guarantees meaningful access to salmon.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 18, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Washington wants the court to reject the immediate repair mandate.

The United States wants the court to uphold the requirement for effective fish access.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Washington argues the treaty right is unworkable and demands voluntary spending.

The United States argues the treaty promises more than hollow access to fisheries.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the standard meant at least a certain level.

Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the decline was large or material.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the financial burden on states to protect treaty rights. It determines how quickly infrastructure must change to support fish populations. The outcome shapes federal-state relations over natural resources.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON