Argument

In most appeals, the parties argue opposing positions. In this case, both the ap
pellee (the Menominee) and the appellant (the United States) argued that the dec
ision of the Court of Claims should be affirmed. The State of Wisconsin, as amic
us curiae, argued that the Court of Claims ruling should be reversed.[22]
The tribe was represented by Charles A. Hobbs of Washington, D.C. The tribe argu
ed that the Menominee Termination Act did not extinguish treaty rights, but inst
ead had two purposes; to terminate federal supervision of the tribe and to trans
fer to the state general criminal and civil jurisdiction which had already been ac
complished by Public Law 280 and that law expressly preserved hunting and fishin
g rights. In the event that the court would decide that the hunting and fishing
rights were extinguished, then the tribe should receive compensation for the los
s of the rights.[33]
The United States was represented by Louis F. Claiborne, assistant to the U.S. S
olicitor General. The United States also argued that the Menominee Termination A
ct did not extinguish hunting and fishing rights under the 1854 treaty and there
fore the tribe was not due compensation from the United States. Claiborne also a
rgued that whatever regulatory rights which were held by the federal government
were transferred to the state of Wisconsin by the termination act.[34]