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
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Superior Court Finds Upper Skagit Tribe Necessary Party in Declaratory Action
Download Court’s letter opinion in re: Schuyler v. Unsworth & Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston County Cause No. 14-2-02373-9 here.
A member of the Upper Skagit Tribe filed an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief on certain tribal hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Point Elliot. However, the Court held that the case affects the rights of the Tribe and therefore the case must be dismissed if it cannot be joined within 90 days.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 11-02 (Lummi v. S’Klallam Tribes & Tulalip)
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 11-02):
Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief
Oral argument video 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
176 Jamestown and Port Gamble Response
186 Jamestown and Port Gamble Reply
This matter is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.
Upper Skagit Tribe Prevails over Suquamish Tribe in U&A Subproceeding
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash., subproceeding 14-01):
37 Suquamish Motion for Summary J
38 Upper Skagit Motion for Summary J
Ninth Circuit Materials in Tulalip v. Suquamish Subproceeding 05-4
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:
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
Federal Court Issues Decision in Challenge to Suquamish Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 05-4 (W.D. Wash.):
193 Swinomish Motion for Partial Summary J
Subp 05-4 Dkt 242 Order Suquamish-1
Materials on subproceeding 05-3 are here.
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.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.