Federal Court Concludes U.S. v. Washington 11-02 Subproceeding [Lummi + S’Klallam Tribes]

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) [subproceeding 11-02]:

238 Jamestown and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes Motion

240 Lummi Response

244 Lower Elwha Response

247 Jamestown and Port Gamble Reply

252 Lower Elwha Motion

254 Lummi Response

255 Jamestown and Port Gamble Response

260 Lower Elwha Reply

262 Jamestown and Port Gamble Surreply

264 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit materials here and here.

Previous lower court court materials here.

S’Klallam Tribes Prevail over Lummi in U.S. v. Washington U&A Subproceeding

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 11-2 (W.D. Wash.):

164 Jamestown and Port Gamble Motion

167 Lummi Motion

168 Lower Elwha Motion

176 Jamestown and Port Gamble Response

178 Suquamish Response

183 Lower Elwha Response

186 Jamestown and Port Gamble Reply

189 Lummi Reply

193 Lower Elwha Reply

210-Order on SJ

This matter is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Lummi Tribe in Treaty Fishing Dispute

Here is the court’s opinion in United States (Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe) v. Lummi Tribe:

CA9 Opinion

The court’s syllabus:

The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of the Klallam Tribe in a case involving a fishing territory dispute between two sets of Indian Tribes, brought pursuant to the continuing jurisdiction of the 1974 “Boldt Decree” issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The panel held that the issue of whether the waters immediately to the west of northern Whidbey Island were part of the Lummi Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds had not yet been determined. The panel held, therefore, that the district court erred in concluding that the issue was controlled by law of the case. The panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Judge Rawlinson dissented because she would hold that the district court properly applied the law of the case doctrine where the fishing rights issue was addressed in the prior opinion United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000).

Briefs and other materials here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding — Klallam Tribes v. Lummi Tribe

Here:

Lummi Opening Brief

Klallam Tribes Answer Brief

Lummi Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here.

Prior CA9 opinion and materials here.

Barbara Lane Walks On

We learned the terrifically sad news that Barbara Lane, the legendary and heroic anthropologist that served as the lead expert witness in the United States v. Washington trial that led to the Boldt decision passed away late last year. Celilo_Village_Salmon

In her honor, we dug up a rare copy of a short article she published in the now-defunct American Indian Journal that summarized some of her written testimony. Here:

Background of Treaty Making in Western Washington

And, of course, the Boldt decision itself:

384_F.Supp._312

UPDATE — we have her obituary now:

Barbara Lane, one of the foremost experts in First Nations anthropology and Native American rights, passed away on December 31, 2013 in Arlington, Washington. Dr. Lane produced exceptional expert reports and testimony in more than 40 court cases, many of which were pivotal in determining the rights of native peoples to access and use natural resources. The United States federal courts that ruled on treaty fishing rights in the Northwest relied heavily on her testimony. Her work was instrumental for the Quinault and other Washington Tribes in numerous treaty fishing rights cases related to the 1974 Boldt Decision (U.S. vs Washington) and for the Quinault in Mitchell vs U.S. in 1977. The United States Supreme Court referenced her findings in affirming the key decision on Northwest treaty rights. (I.e. the “Boldt” Decision.) She also served as an expert witness in cases involving fisheries and land claims of Canadian First Nations. Her work was well known and respected by Indigenous Peoples, the academic community, and legal circles. She was retained as the U.S. Federal Court of Oregon expert in U.S. v. Oregon in 1991.

Barbara was a member of the Society for Applied Anthropology, the Canadian Sociological and Anthropological Association, and the American Ethnological Society. During her illustrious career, she held many research, editorial and administrative positions. Although she authored numerous publications, she often preferred to do her work without seeking public recognition.

She received an A.B. and M.A. from the University of Michigan in the late 1940’s and earned a PhD from the University of Washington in 1953. Barbara held faculty positions at the Universities of Washington, Hawaii, Pittsburg, British Columbia, Victoria and Western Washington University. In 2006, Barbara was awarded an honorary Doctor of Law Degree from the University of Victoria for her expertise and contributions to First Nations anthropology and rights.

Her career took her to far reaches of the world, including Postdoctoral Study at the Australian National University from 1953-1954 and work with Coast Salish peoples, India, and Vanuatu. Much of her early work was done in professional partnership with her Husband, Robert who predeceased her.

As Director for the Quinault Indian Bicentennial Project from 1976-1977, she provided guidance and direction for creating an historical record for the people and culture of the Quinault Nation. This work led to the publication of the Handbook on Legislation and Litigation Affecting the Quinault Reservation and established an invaluable core of records for the Quinault Historical Foundation (now called the Quinault Cultural Center).

Her home and office was located in Victoria, British Columbia for many years. Barbara is survived by a son, two daughters and one grandchild.

Klallam Tribes Win Fishing Territory Rights Case against Lummi Nation

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 11-02 (W.D. Wash.):

Klallam Tribes Motion

Lummi Response

Klallam Tribes Reply

DCT Order in subproceeding 11-02

Douglas Harris on the Boldt Decision in Canada

Douglas C. Harris posted his paper,The Boldt Decision in Canada: Aboriginal Treaty Rights to Fish on the Pacific, part of THE POWER OF PROMISES: RETHINKING INDIAN TREATIES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, Alexandra Harmon, ed., University of Washington Press, 2008. Here is the abstract:

The Oregon Boundary Treaty of 1846 established the forty-ninth parallel as the boundary between British and American interests in western North America. After 1846, Aboriginal peoples to the north of the border negotiated with the British Crown the terms of their coexistence with incoming settlers, those to its south with the United States. As a result, while some of the Coast Salish and Kwak’waka’wakw peoples in what would become British Columbia concluded treaties between 1850 and 1854 with the Crown’s representative, James Douglas, the tribes in the United States settled with the governor of the Washington territory, Isaac I. Stevens, in 1854 and 1855.

Continue reading