Here (aka United States v. Washington subproceeding 14-2):
Lower court materials here.
treaty rights
Ninth Circuit Remands Makah v. Quileute/Quinault Ocean U&A Dispute
Here is the opinion in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe.
Briefs are here.
Article About the Little Traverse Reservation Boundary Case
Herrera v. Wyoming Cert Petition
Here:
2017-10-05 Herrera Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.
Standing Rock/NoDAPL Motion to File Amicus in Support of Dakota Access and ACOE Brief Regarding Remedy
Here are the briefs(PDF) in the matter of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al, (D.D.C. 16-cv-01534):
- 258- United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Brief Regarding Remedy
- 259- Motion of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and the National Association of Manufacturers for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Dakota Access, LLC’s Brief on Vacatur
Upper Skagit Prevails over Suquamish in Ninth Circuit U&A Fishing Territory Appeal
Here is the opinion in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe.
An excerpt:
In this treaty fishing rights case, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (“the Upper Skagit”) filed a Request for Determination as to the geographic scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s (“the Suquamish”) usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U&A”) as determined by Judge Boldt in 1975. Specifically, the Upper Skagit sought a determination that the Suquamish’s U&A determinations do not include Chuckanut Bay, Samish Bay, and a portion of Padilla Bay where the Upper Skagit has its own court-approved U&A determinations (“the Contested Waters”). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did not intend to include the Contested Waters in the Suquamish’s U&A determinations and, accordingly, granted summary judgment to the Upper Skagit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
Briefs here.
En Banc Petitions in Penobscot v. Mills
Seattle Human Rights Commission Letter on Culverts Case
Here:
Seattle Human Rights Commission Culvert_OpEd
An excerpt:
The Seattle Human Rights Commission writes in response to the Seattle Times recent editorial “The Supreme Court must clarify culvert ruling,” and seeks to correct inaccuracies regarding tribal treaty rights and the State’s obligation to not impair them. Washington’s tribal nations have lived and fished throughout our State since time immemorial, and their right to do so is protected by treaty. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an exhaustive and well researched opinion, recognized that this right requires the removal of culverts that block fish passage. The State’s decision to seek Supreme Court review of that decision reflects revisionist and troubling effort to weaken treaty rights.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 09-1 — second go around, I think?)
Here:
Oral argument video here.
Skokomish Tribe Effort to Re-Open Its U&A Fishing Territory Fails
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-1 (Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation) (W.D. Wash.):
1-1 Skokomish Request for Determination
21 S’Klallam Tribes Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.