Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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.

Federal Court Rules Tribal Officers Not Immune; Tort Claims May Proceed against Tribal Police (Black v. US)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is the third ruling in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

53 Joint Tribal Motion to Dismiss

69 Black Response

77 Joint Tribal Reply

83 DCT Order

Claims against the tribes are dismissed. The court dismissed Kitsap County here. And the US here.

Update in Black v. US — Tort Claims Related to Shooting by Tribal Police

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the updated materials in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

39 Amended Complaint

46 Kitsap County Motion to Dismiss

53 Joint Tribal Motion to Dismiss

62 DCT Order Dismissing Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office

Only the tribal defendants remain in the case. Prior post on this matter here.

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Lummi Opening Brief

Klallam Tribes Answer Brief

Lummi Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here.

Prior CA9 opinion and materials here.

Federal Dismisses FTCA Claims against US in Shooting of Tribal Member by Tribal Police

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials so far in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

17 Motion to Dismiss

23 Port Gamble S’Klallam Response

25 Suquamish Response

27 Plaintiff’s Response

29 US Reply

31 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

Claims against Suquamish and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes and officers remain.

Federal Court Issues Decision in Challenge to Suquamish Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 05-4 (W.D. Wash.):

193 Swinomish Motion for Partial Summary J

195 Suquamish Motion

199 Tulalip Motion

Subp 05-4 Dkt 242 Order Suquamish-1

Materials on subproceeding 05-3 are here.

Turtle Talk Faves: Jeffrey Veregge Art

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Jeffrey is a Port Gamble S’Klallam tribal member, and just awesome. Here is his website. H/T blog profiling Jeffrey’s Indian art-inspired Superheroes.

Buy a print, or a t-shirt.

TheBat

The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Takes Total Control of Child Welfare

Adrea Korthase

From the Seattle Times here.

Washington SCT Decides Five Corners Family Farmers v. State — Groundwater Allocation Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the majority and here is the dissent.

Here is the tribal amicus brief.

Suquamish Tribe Files Cert Petition in U.S. v. Washington Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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.