Tulalip Tribes v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

Good Law
794 F.3d 1129·2015 WL 4509235·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13015
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 27, 201513-35773California3,171 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paez, J.

In this treaty fishing rights case, the Tulalip Tribes (“the Tulalip”) invoked the district court’s continuing jurisdiction as provided by the permanent injunction in United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 419 (W.D.Wash.1974) (.Decision I), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1975), by filing a request for determination of the scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s (“the Su-quamish”) usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U & A”). The Tulalip sought a determination that the Suquamish’s U & A, as determined by Judge Boldt in 1975, does not include Possession Sound, Port Gardner Bay, the mouth of the Snohomish River, and the bays on the west side of Whidbey Island (Admiralty Bay, Mutiny Bay, Useless Bay, and Cultus Bay). Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did not intend to exclude the contested areas from the Suquamish’s U & A and entered judgment accordingly. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.

I. Background

There is a lengthy background to the complex litigation over the treaty fishing rights of the Indian tribes in Western Washington. The historical background of the treaty negotiations is detailed in Judge…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.