STATE LEGISLATORS AND FEDERAL COURTS: INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS IN WASHINGTON STATE

The growing involvement of federal district courts in the development, formulation, and implementation of state policies presents many dilemmas for the student of public policy. In this study the issue was examined from both the perspectives of public law and public administration. Three hypotheses sets examining respectively the role of the judiciary, the management agencies, and the legislature aided in exploring this issue.

It was observed that, based on field interviews and library research, significant shifts are taking place in the manner in which the judiciary enters the policy making process. Not only do we expect the courts to solve different sorts of problems--problems of public policy, but we expect the results of that intervention not to effect the manner in which policy affects our lives. However, the involvement of the judiciary does have profound effects on the political institutions and relationships which make policy. It was found that judicial intervention in Washington State over Indian fishing rights resulted in major alterations in the political atmosphere which surrounded the legislative and administrative agencies responsible for making fisheries policy.

By examining the movement of one case (United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D., Wash., 1974)) through the trail, appellate process, the parallel litigation, and on to the United States Supreme Court, it was possible to observe, evaluate and categorize the manifold effects of litigation on the policy making process.

The use of research in policy typologies by scholars such as Theodore Lowi and Robert Salisbury and John Heinz('1) proved to be most helpful in charting the evolution of fisheries policy choices during this study. In addition, it was found that the behavior of the Judiciary too could be categorized by these frameworks.

These findings are of significant interest to both students of

public law and public policy formulation. It is hoped that they will

give us a better appreciation of what happens when we call upon

the federal judiciary to settle a dispute over the correct path

governmental actions should pursue.

('1)Theodore Lowi, "American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory," XVI World Politics, page 677 (1964) and Robert Salisbury and John Heinz, "A Theory of Policy Analysis and Some Preliminary Applications," in Policy Analysis in Political Science, edited by Ira Sharkansky (Chicago: Markham, 1970) page 39.