Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Dismissal of Muckleshoot U&A Appeal

Here is the opinion in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes, subproceeding 17-02 of United States v. Washington.

Briefs 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

Ninth Circuit Affirms U&A Boundaries in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 09-01 [Makah versus Quinault & Quileute]

Here are the materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (CA9):

Unpublished Memorandum

Quileute & Quinault Opening Brief

Makah Answer Brief

Quileute & Quinault Reply

Suquamish Brief

State of Washington and Klallam Tribes Brief

Hoh Brief

Lower court materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) (subproceeding 09-01):

439 DCT Order re Boundaries

442 Quileute Motion for Reconsideration

444 Hoh Motion

445 Quinault Motion

447 State Motion — Scrivener’s Error

448 Suquamish Motion

449 DCT Amended Order

453 Makah Response

456 State Response to Motions for Reconsideration

459 DCT Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration

Prior posts here and here.

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

Federal Court Concludes U.S. v. Washington 11-02 Subproceeding [Lummi + S’Klallam Tribes]

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) [subproceeding 11-02]:

238 Jamestown and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes Motion

240 Lummi Response

244 Lower Elwha Response

247 Jamestown and Port Gamble Reply

252 Lower Elwha Motion

254 Lummi Response

255 Jamestown and Port Gamble Response

260 Lower Elwha Reply

262 Jamestown and Port Gamble Surreply

264 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit materials here and here.

Previous lower court court materials here.

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.

Stillaguamish Marine U&A Allowed to Proceed [U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-03]

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington [subproceeding 17-03] or Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

60 Motion for Reconsideration of Contempt Motion

61 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

64 Upper Skagit MTD

65 Tulalip MSJ

66 Swinomish MTD

69 Sauk-Suiattle Response

70 Jamestown & Port Gamble Response

72 Muckleshoot Response

73 Hoh Response

74 Stillaguamish Response to 65

75 Stillaguamish Response to 64 & 66

84 Skagit Reply

85 Swinomish Reply

86 Swinomish Reply

87 Tulalip Reply

91 DCT Order Denying Motions

Prior post here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Muckleshoot U&A Appeal [U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 17-02]

Here:

Appellants Corrected Opening Brief

Appellee Nisqually Indian Tribe Answering Brief 

Appellee Squaxin Island Tribe Brief 

Brief of Interested Party Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe 

Real Party in Interest Breif fo the Stilliguamish Tribe of Indians

Real Party in Interest Brief fo the Hoh Indian Tribe

Appellee Puyallup Tribe Brief

Jamestown et al brief

Suq Responsive Br

Reply brief

Lower court materials here.

New Scholarship on Indian Treaty Rights and Fossil-Fuel Exports Projects in the Pacific Northwest

Michael C. Blumm & Jeffrey Litwak have posted “Democratizing Treaty Fishing Rights: Denying Fossil-Fuel Exports Projects in the Pacific Northwest,” forthcoming in the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Indian treaty fishing rights scored an important judicial victory recently when an equally divided U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the so-called “culverts case,” which decided that the Stevens Treaties of the 1850s give the tribes a right to protect salmon migration obstructed by barrier road culverts. The implications of that decision on other habitat damaging activities have yet to be ascertained, but even prior to the resolution of the culverts case there were significant indications that federal, state, and local administrative agencies were acting to protect treaty fishing rights from the adverse effects of large fossil-fuel export projects proposed throughout the Pacific Northwest. After briefly explaining the culverts decision, this article examines five recent examples of agencies denying permits for fossil-fuel developments at least in part of treaty rights grounds. We draw some lessons from these examples concerning the importance of tribal participation in administrative processes and explore some knotty evidentiary issues that tribal efforts to protect their historic fishing sites may entail. We conclude that safeguarding their treaty rights in the 21st century will require tribes to be as vigilant about the administrative process as they have been about seeking judicial protection.

Materials (so far) in Stillaguamish U&A Subproceeding

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

1 Motion for Leave

3 DCT Order Granting Request

4 Stillaguamish Request for Determination

47 Stillaguamish Motion for Contempt

54 Tulalip Response

55 Swinomish Response

56 Stillaguamish Reply

59 DCT Order Denying Motion for Contempt