Judge Martinez Orders Trial in Stillaguamish U&A Subproceeding

Skagit canoes pulled up onto beach near Coupeville, Whidbey Island Washington, ca. 1895

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):

170 Stillaguamish Motion

174 Upper Skagit Motion

176 Tulalip Motion

178 Stillaguamish Motion re Laches

179 Swinomish Motion

191 Upper Skagit Response to 170

193 Stillaguamish Response to 179

194 Stillaguamish Response to 176

195 Stillaguamish Response to 174

198 Swinomish Response to 170

200 Tulalip Response to 170

204 Upper Skagit Reply in Support of 174

205 Tulalip Reply in Support of 176

206 Stillaguamish Reply in Support of 170

207 Swinomish Reply in Support of 179

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Upper Skagit v. Sauk-Suiattle [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 20-01]

Here:

Sauk-Suiattle Opening Brief

220429 Answer Brief of Appellees Upper Skagit

220429 Answer Brief of Intervenor-PL-Appellee Swinomish

220617 – FINAL Reply (filed)

Sauk-Suiattle fishermen on the Skagit River in 1985. The location was near Mount Vernon, Washington, and it was known as Sauk Camp because of the large number of Sauk-Suiattle boats that were kept there.

Lower court materials here and here.

Sklallam Tribes’ Cert Petition over Lummi Nation U&A [U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 11-02]

Here is the petition in Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation:

Question presented:

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.

Federal Court Issues Decision in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 19-01

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

61 S’Klallam Response

63 Upper Skagit Response

67 Lummi Response

68 Tulalip Response

69 Swinomish Response

74 Swinomish Reply

76 Upper Skagit Reply

77 Reply

78 Tulalip Reply

79 DCT Order

Earlier briefs here.

Tulalip, Suquamish, Swinomish, and Upper Skagit Reach Settlement with State on Crab Harvest Estimates

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 89-03 (W.D. Wash.):

14809 Joint Stipulation

14810 DCT Order

Three Tribes Withdraw Laches as a Defense in US v. Washington Subproceeding 17-03

Here are the notices of withdrawal of laches as a defense in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):

Sub 17-03 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Notice of Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Sub 17-03 The Tulalip Tribes Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Sub 17-03 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Withdrawal of Laches Defense 011921

Prior posts here and here.

As I wrote in 2015, I see this as a good thing — the possibility that the laches defense could be used against tribal treaty rights has hung like a smoggy haze over Indian country ever since 2005. It staggers me to think that tribes would do this to themselves for short-term, and probably illusory, gain.

Materials in Upper Skagit & Sauk-Suiattle U&A Dispute

Here are the materials so far in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 20-01, aka Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe:

1-1 Upper Skagit Request

2 Motion for TRO

6 Sauk-Suiattle Response to 1

7 Sauk-Suiattle Response to 2

8 DCT Order Granting 1

15 Tulalip Response to 2

20 DCT Order Denying 2

Update (11-12-2020):

22 Motion for Reconsideration

23 Saul-Suiattle Response

24 Upper Skagit MSJ

27 Sauk-Suiattle MTD

28 Sauk-Suiattle Response to 24

29 Swinomish Response to 24

31 Upper Skagit Reply in Support of 24

33 Swinomish Response to 27

34 Upper Skagit Response to 27

35 Sauk-Suiattle Reply in Support of 27

36 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration