Briefs in Lummi Crab Fishing Case

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:

51 Swinomish Brief

55 Upper Skagit Brief

57 Tulalip Tribes Brief

59 Lummi Brief

Prior post here.

Federal Court Enjoins Lummi Tribe’s Proposed Winter Crab Fishing

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding no. 19-01:

1-motion-for-leave-to-file.pdf

3-request-for-determination.pdf

8-swinomish-motion-for-tro.pdf

13-upper-skagit-motion-for-tro.pdf

16-tulalip-motion-for-tro.pdf

26-sklallam-tribes-response.pdf

29-lummi-response.pdf

37-dct-order.pdf

Federal Court Rejects Effort by Sauk-Suiattle to Reopen US v. Washington 93-01 Subproceeding

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 93-01:

172-stipulated-settlement.pdf

183-stipulated-settlement-2.pdf

333-sauk-suiattle-motion-to-vacate.pdf

333-tulalip-response.pdf

337-swinomish-response.pdf

usit-response-to-sauks-motion-to-vacate-1998-agreement.pdf

339-reply.pdf

348-dct-order.pdf

Ninth Circuit Materials in Tulalip v. Suquamish Subproceeding 05-4

Here are the briefs in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 05-4):

Tulalip Opening Brief

Suquamish Answer Brief

Tulalip Reply

Oral argument audio and video.

Lower court materials here.

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

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.

Concern over Whether Indian Law Will Continue to Be a Part of the Washington State Bar Exam

Here are three letters recently sent on this issue, which we believe is arising in the context of an overhaul of the Washington State Bar exam:

Galanda, Letter_to_WSBA_Board_of_Governors_and_Deans_at_WA_Law_Schools

Jamestown S’Kallam, Allen Letter re State Bar Exam Including Indian Law – July 9-2010

Swinomish Tribe, Indian Law Letter 9 10 2010

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Suquamish Tribe over Puget Sound Fishing Rights

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s (crabby) opinion in Upper Skagit Tribe v. Washington.

The briefs:

Suquamish Opening Brief

Upper Skagit Tribe Brief

Tulalip Tribes Response Brief

Swinomish Tribe Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief

Suquamish Tribe Reply Brief

The key holding:

We conclude that it is at least as likely as not that Judge Boldt meant what he said; the Suquamish treaty territory “include[s] the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River.” This broad, unlimited fishery is what Dr. Lane described in her report and testimony. Dr. Lane stated that marine fisheries “are far more difficult to delimit than fresh waters.” She repeatedly underlined that her report did not, and could not, list all of the usual and accustomed fishing locations of the Suquamish. She noted that the Suquamish had more limited resources in their home area than most tribes, and thus had to travel more extensively to fish.

Dr. Lane said that she had no documentary evidence that the Suquamish fished in the San Juan Islands, but nonetheless found it likely that they did so. Judge Boldt agreed, deciding in the absence of any specific evidence that the Haro and Rosario Straits were part of the Suquamish traditional fishing grounds. This demonstrates a lack of specific evidence would not have precluded Judge Boldt from including Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage in Suquamish’s territory.

And why we think the court is being crabby:

Continue reading

Cigarette Forfeiture Case at Swinomish

Here is the district court opinion in United States v. A Whole Bunch of Cigarettes (3,609,820) (us-v-cigarettes-dct-opinion), a case out of the Western District of Washington. This case involves criminal forfeiture of smokes under the Contraband Cigarette Tax Act and the tax contract between the State of Washington and the Swinomish Tribe.