context: . This ruling is also consistent with criminal law, wherein a criminal defendant may seek dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that the alleged offense violates a federally-secured treaty hunting and/or fishing right.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: allowing defendant to challenge state conviction on the grounds that it violated a treaty-hunting right
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 735-36, 106 S.Ct. 2216, 90 L.Ed.2d 767 (1986) (addressing defendant’s argument that federal statutes violated a treaty-hunting right); United States v. Williams, 898 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1990) (allowing defendant to challenge state conviction on the grounds that it violated a treaty-hunting right).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: rejecting government's argument that hunting right was not a right enjoyed by the tribal member but rather a treaty communal right
citation_b.sentence: See also United States v. Fox, 573 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir.2009) (rejecting government's argument that hunting right was not a right enjoyed by the tribal member but rather a treaty communal right).