Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. State of Washington

The Yakimas argue before this court en banc that PL-280 did not authorize Washington to assume partial jurisdiction and that Rev.Code Wash. § 37.12.010 is accordingly invalid.

We must first decide whether the Supreme Court’s summary dismissals in Tonasket v. Washington, 420 U.S. 915 , 95 S.Ct. 1108 , 43 L.Ed.2d 387 (1975) and Makah Indian Tribe v. Washington, 397 U.S. 316 , 90 S.Ct. 1115 , 25 L.Ed.2d 335 (1970) foreclose the issue. We can dispose of Tonasket quickly because the Supreme Court of Washington did not address the partial assumption question (as it did the disclaimer issue) after the United States Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U.S. 164 , 93 S.Ct. 1257 , 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973); accordingly, the partial assumption issue was not before the Supreme Court when it dismissed the second appeal. Makah is somewhat more troublesome because Makah clearly involved a partial assumption of jurisdiction under Rev. Code Wash. § 37.12.010 in connection with highways. We think Makah is not dispositive for two reasons. First, the jurisdictional statement to the Supreme Court did…

dissenting, with whom Circuit Judges BROWNING, DUNIWAY, ELY and WALLACE concur.

The Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation (“Yakimas”), invoking federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 , brought this suit challenging the statutory and constitutional validity of the State of Washington’s assumption of criminal and civil jurisdiction over the Yakimas’ reservation lands and sought a declaration that the assumption was void, or if not void, that the assumption gave the State concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction. The district court rejected their contentions on a number of grounds, and the Yakimas appeal from the adverse judgment.

On appeal the Yakimas contend: The State’s assumption of jurisdiction is invalid because the State did not comply with a statutory condition precedent to assumption imposed by Congress in PL-280 1 because the State did not amend her constitutional disclaimer of jurisdiction over the Yakimas, and she did not obtain tribal consent to her assumption of jurisdiction. If the State could have assumed complete jurisdiction over the Yakimas, R.C.W. § 37.12.010, the assumption of partial jurisdiction is invalid because it is…

550 F.2d 443 CONFEDERATED BANDS AND TRIBES OF the YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., Appellees. No. 74-1225. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jan. 21, 1977. James B. Hovis (argued), of Hovis, Cockrill & Roy, Yakima, Wash., for appellant. Malachy R. Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Olympia, Wash., for appellees. Before CHAMBERS, BROWNING, DUNIWAY, ELY, HUFSTEDLER, WRIGHT, TRASK, CHOY, GOODWIN, WALLACE, SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 The Yakimas argue before this court en banc that PL-280 did not authorize Washington to assume partial jurisdiction and that Rev.Code Wash. § 37.12.010 is accordingly invalid. 2 We must first decide whether the Supreme Court's summary dismissals in Tonasket v. Washington, 420 U.S. 915 , 95 S.Ct. 1108 , 43 L.Ed.2d 387 (1975) and Makah Indian Tribe v. Washington, 397 U.S. 316 , 90 S.Ct. 1115 , 25 L.Ed.2d 335 (1970) foreclose the issue. We can dispose of Tonasket quickly because the Supreme Court of Washington did not address the partial assumption question (as it did the disclaimer issue) after the United States Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and remanded the case…