In the preceding week, the Ninth Circuit deliberated on the standing of a plaintiff challenging the utilization of voting machines while also deducing a treaty, rendering an Indian Tribe the hunting rights. Understanding the significance of these decisions calls for an overview of each case’s core arguments and the court’s ultimate rulings.
In LAKE v. FONTES, the court asserted that the plaintiffs’ allegations over possible hacks on voting devices in prospective elections were inadequate to establish factual injury. The plaintiffs’ fears stemmed from the potential occurrence of an event- voting machines’ hacking, which was deemed purely speculative by the court. The standing of a plaintiff is suppressed when unsupported averments are presented without concrete proof of actual or imminent harm.
Simultaneously, the court interpreted a treaty, endorsing hunting privileges to an Indian Tribe. The Tribe’s rights to hunt, enshrined in the treaty, were not infringed upon as was the case. As the court perceived, the bounds set by the treaty protected the Tribe’s traditional hunting rights, and this recognition is monumental in empowering tribal sovereignty throughout the region.
This week’s cases at the Ninth Circuit invite a rich discourse on two diverse topics in law- election security by questioning vulnerability and the foundation of the hunting rights of indigenous tribes. Law professionals should keep a close watch on the outcomes of such litigation as they formulate a meaningful picture of the evolving legal landscape.