Charles Wilkinson on the History of the Boldt Decision

Charles F. Wilkinson and the University of Washington Press have published “Treaty Justice: The Northwest Tribes, the Boldt Decision, and the Recognition of Fishing Rights.”

Blurb:

In 1974, Judge George Boldt issued a ruling that affirmed the fishing rights and tribal sovereignty of Native nations in Washington State. The Boldt Decision transformed Indigenous law and resource management across the United States and beyond. Like Brown v. Board of Education, the case also brought about far-reaching societal changes, reinforcing tribal sovereignty and remedying decades of injustice.

Eminent legal historian and tribal advocate Charles Wilkinson tells the dramatic story of the Boldt Decision against the backdrop of salmon’s central place in the cultures and economies of the Pacific Northwest. In the 1960s, Native people reasserted their fishing rights as delineated in nineteenth-century treaties. In response, state officials worked with non-Indian commercial and sport fishing interests to forcefully—and often violently—oppose Native actions. These “fish wars” spurred twenty tribes and the US government to file suit in federal court. Moved by the testimony of tribal leaders and other experts, Boldt pointedly waited until Lincoln’s birthday to hand down a decision recognizing the tribes’ right to half of the state’s fish. The case’s long aftermath led from the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Boldt’s opinion to collaborative management of the harvest of salmon and other marine resources.

Expert and compelling, Treaty Justice weaves personalities and local detail into the definitive account of one of the twentieth century’s most important civil rights cases.

Federal Court Issues Decision in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 19-01

Here are the updated materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:

61 S’Klallam Response

63 Upper Skagit Response

67 Lummi Response

68 Tulalip Response

69 Swinomish Response

74 Swinomish Reply

76 Upper Skagit Reply

77 Reply

78 Tulalip Reply

79 DCT Order

Earlier briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Lummi Tribe U& A

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

Lummi Tribe Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Kllalam Tribes Brief

Tulalip Brief

Lower Elwha Tribe Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

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.