Here is the petition in Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation:
The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit—in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts—properly abrogated the long-settled and original understanding of a central treaty term, without any legal or factual basis for doing so, and while redefining the boundary of a major body of water to accommodate its novel treaty interpretation.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 18-02 (W.D. Wash.), aka Swinomish Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe:
3 swinomish & tulalip motion for tro
16 upper skagit motion
19 lummi response
27 dct order
Thanks to D.L.:
The American Public Media show “Marketplace” is doing a series on coal, and two of their stories have focused on Indian tribes. The first, about coal mining on the Crow Reservation, is more about the tribal economy; but the second, about a proposed coal shipping terminal in Washington state, has some legal issues (whether treaty fishing rights might be used to defeat the proposed coal terminal).
Both stories can be found at http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/coal-play
This week, the governors of Washington and Oregon asked the Obama Administration to review proposed coal export terminals. The Seattle Times article is here and the Huffington Post article is here. The letter linked in the Seattle Times article is here.
An excerpt from the Seattle Times
Western coal producers, saddled with low prices and weak demand in U.S. markets, are eager to send more coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming to Asia. Much of that coal is on federal lands, but some is on tribal, private or state lands.
The proposals include two export terminals in Washington to be in Cherry Point, which is near Bellingham, and in Longview. There are also proposals for terminals in Oregon.
The prospect of using the Pacific Northwest as a launch point for coal exports has triggered intense controversy in both Oregon and Washington.
Seattle Human Rights Commission’s official comments are here. The Commission’s resolution on coal and the impact on Indian tribes is here. (Thanks to C.S.)
Finally, here is a Northwest Public Radio story about the potential effects of the proposed export plans on the Lummi Tribe.
Previous posts are here and here.
ICT Article here.
CBS News video here.
Article (from earlier this month) about people preparing to travel to the Vatican here.
Previous post about the announcement here.
Here is the majority and here is the dissent.
Here is the tribal amicus brief.
Here is the news article.
Here is the opinion in Lummi Indian Tribe v. State of Washington (Wash. S. Ct.).
In 1998, this court held that under then-existing law, new private water rights did not fully vest until the water was put to a beneficial use, and not merely when the “pumps and pipes” capacity to use the water was built. Dep’t of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 586, 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). We cautioned then that we were not considering municipal water rights, which often receive separate treatment in water law. Id. at 594. In response to our opinion, the legislature amended the municipal water law, Second Engrossed Second Substitute H.B. 1338, 58th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2003) (SESSHB 1338), to, among other things, explicitly define certain nongovernmental water suppliers as municipal and to make that definition retroactive. We are now asked whether these amendments violate separation of powers or facially violate due process. We conclude they do not. We reverse in part and affirm in part.