Tribes and States Sue to Block Sale and Removal of National Archives in Seattle

Here is the complaint in State of Washington v. Vought (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

30 Amended Complaint

32 Opposition

37 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form of Injunctive Relief

40 Reply

News coverage:

Washington AG press release:

Indian Country Today:

Seattle Times:

Spokesman Review:

Yakama Nation press release:

Press Release_YN_OMB_Seattle Archives Lawsuit (1.4.21) (002)

Update in Tribal Litigation Involving Gold Coast Shellfish Company [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 89-3-12]

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 89-3-12 (W.D. Wash.):

1 Skokomish Complaint

142 DCT Order

143 DCT Order — Permanent Injunction

150 Klallam Tribes’ Petition for Review

155 Squaxin and Nisqually Response

157 Gold Coast Response

158 State Response

164 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Affirms Rejection of Skokomish U&A Claims to Satsop River, Debates Continuing Jurisdiction, Cites to Hunter Thompson, and Makes a Dull Indian Law Day Interesting

Here is the opinion in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 17-01.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-1 [Skokomish U&A]

Here are the briefs:

Skokomish Opening Brief

Squaxin Island Brief

State of Washington Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief

Lower court materials here.

Skokomish Tribal Prosecutor Position

The Skokomish Indian Tribe is soliciting applications for a Tribal Prosecutor. This is a two year contract position, subject to renewal, with a contract rate of four thousand dollars ($4,000) per month. The contract requires the Tribal Prosecutor to be on site two days per week. The applicant also must be a member in good standing of a state or territorial bar association. Please send applications in Microsoft Word and/or Adobe Pdf format to:

Ninth Circuit Rejects Skokomish Bid for Fishing Allocation in U.S. v. Wash. Subproceeding

Here is the opinion in United States v. Washington, though as the court points out, neither the U.S. nor the State of Washington were parties to this one. An excerpt:

The district court granted the Port Gamble and Jamestown Tribes’ motion to dismiss. The district court held that “[t]he dispute here does not arise from the Hood Canal Agreement, and it cannot be settled by looking to its terms. Instead, the Skokomish are asking the court to bypass the Agreement and create an allocation for the parties because they cannot agree among themselves as required by the Agreement.” The court noted that nothing in the agreement “empowers the court to allocate harvest shares in the absence of the agreement of the parties.” The provision in Judge Boldt’s decree retaining jurisdiction for “[d]isputes concerning the subject matter of this case which the parties have been unable to resolve among themselves,” did not apply because “[t]he subject matter of this case is treaty fishing rights, not the equitable rights of any one tribe to harvest a certain allocation of fish…. Nowhere in these decisions is there a finding that inter-tribal allocation (as opposed to allocation between treaty- and non-treaty fishermen) is the subject matter of this case.” As for the catch-all language in Judge Boldt’s order, “[s]uch other matters as the court may deem appropriate,” “[t]his is a discretionary section, and … the Court does not deem it appropriate to take jurisdiction of this matter.” Because the request for allocation did not fall within the purposes of enforcing the treaty or the Hood Canal Agreement, and neither provided for court allocation if the tribes could not agree among themselves, the court exercised its discretion to refrain from granting equitable relief. Though we do not reach, or rule upon, all the conclusions of the district court and the challenges to them, we conclude that dismissal was proper, and affirm.