Here is Quileute & Quinault’s response, addressing issues such as whether the Stevens treaties must be read together, the meaning of “fish” and whether U&As are species-specific, the proper use of the canons of construction, and what we know of the treaty negotiations at issue here.
Previous coverage here.
Makah’s petition is here, and the state’s is here. Among the issues at stake in the case are whether the Stevens treaties must be interpreted monolithically and whether the evidence of whaling and sealing is sufficient to establish fishing usual & accustomed areas.
Decision is here: ocean case decision. Bottom line: Quileute has fishing rights 40 miles offshore, and Quinault has rights 30 miles offshore.
Previous coverage is here.