United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

Good Law
235 F.3d 429·2000 WL 1818337·31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20308·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9904·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31558
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 13, 2000No. 99-35960California4,078 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hawkins, J.

This appeal concerns the limits of the Muckleshoot Tribe’s saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area under the Boldt Decision. Because we agree with the district court that the Muckleshoot’s saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area, as found by Judge Boldt, was limited to Elliott Bay, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the Puyallup, Suquamish, and Swinomish Tribes.

Background and Procedural History

This case centers on the interpretation of a lengthy and detailed district court opinion published in 1974 after an extensive trial involving a voluminous record. In United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D.Wash.1974) (“the Boldt Decision”), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1975), Judge Boldt adjudicated the treaty-reserved fishing rights of several tribes in Washington state, including the parties to this dispute. Central to this case is Finding of Fact 76 (“Finding 76”) of the opinion, which states:

Id. at 367 (emphasis added) (brackets in original). After the decision was issued, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (“the Muck-leshoot”) opened commercial fisheries in some of the areas designated in Finding 76.

Judge Boldt’s decision did not explicitly address shellfish…

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.