News coverage of the event here.
LA Times article about Lummi Nation’s opposition here.
The Crow Tribe signed an agreement August 7, 2015, to become a 5% shareholder of Gateway Pacific Terminal, which is a partnership to open shipping ports in Washington. The deal coincides with Cloud Peak Energy’s arrangement to pay Gateway Pacific Terminal $32 million to construct a port on Puget Sound that can ship 60 million tons of exports a year including coal mined on the Crow Reservation to Asian markets. The Tribe leased coal to Cloud Peak Energy from its sole mine in 2013, but a new mine on the reservation could bring 20 million tons annually through the new port.
Although the Tribe does not owe any money up front it could be responsible for 5% of an estimated $700 million construction budget. Final approval is still required from the Crow Tribe and the federal government. Environmental surveys and plans are being conducted currently and there is opposition from both environmental and native groups including the Lummi Nation, who exercise fishing rights near the proposed port site.
The majority opinion is here, and the two dissenting opinions are here and here. The majority holds (reversing itself from opinions in 2009 and 2010) that a criminal suspect (here a reckless driver) is utterly free and clear from tribal jurisdiction once the suspect leaves the reservation. Tribal police cannot even hold the suspect until state officials arrive.
One of the dissents raises an interesting point. This outcome strongly encourages anyone — even tribal members — from making a crazy, reckless beeline for the reservation boundary.
Our first posting on this case (with links to briefs) is here. Here are the previous opinions:
First it was 9-0, then 6-3, and now 5-4 the other way. What happened?
Here are links to the briefs:
80653-5 – State v. Eriksen
Hearing Date – 05/12/2009
- Reply of Petitioner
- Amicus Lummi Nation Brief
- Statement of Additional Auth
- Answer to Petition for Review
- Appellant Brief
- Petition for Review
- Respondents Brief
Here is the petition in Suquamish Tribe v. Upper Skagit Tribe: Suquamish Cert Petition.
Here is the question presented:
Whether a court implementing an unambiguous court order is bound to apply that order according to its plain terms, or whether the court should instead determine whether the judge who initially issued the order “intended something other than its apparent meaning,” as the Ninth Circuit held in this case.
Lower court materials here.