the decisions of the IWC could not be implemented under the 
Whaling Convention Act. On 11 January 1979, the District 
Court found that the federal regulations were so directly 
linked to the conduct of foreign relations that it lacked 
subject matter jurisdiction to review their validity. The 
Court dismissed the Eskimos' suit as presenting a non- 
justiciable political question, leaving intact the authority 
of the federal government to implement the IWC's decision 
under the Whaling Convention Act (Hopson v. Kreps, 462 F. 
Supp. 374 (Da. "Alas. 1979) ): 
The Eskimo plantiffs appealed the decision of the U.S. 
DIStETJeCt Court for the District: of Alaska to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which issued an opinion on 
Ha July 1980" finding that the District Court had® jurisdzction 
to consider whether the Whaling Convention Act authorized 
the Department of Commerce to issue regulations governing 
Eskimo whaling, that this question of statutory interpretation 
was not a "political question", and that the District Court 
should have considered it on the merits rather than dismissing 
the suit. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's 
dismissal of the lawsuit and remanded the case back to the 
District Court for consideration of the statutory question 
raised by the plantiffs (Hopson v. Kreps, No. 79-4151 (9th 
Cire. July I4,"°1980)).” At™thewend of 1980, * the Jitigation 
was again proceeding before the District Court in Alaska and 
the federal government was preparing to publish proposed 
regulations in the Federal Register to implement the most 
recent decision of the IWC. 
= Alp 
