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

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

Muckleshoot v. Tulalip U&A Cert Petition

Here is the cert petition in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the Ninth Circuit, in conflict with precedent of this Court and the D.C. Circuit, impermissibly narrowed a decades-old judicial decree so as to deprive Indian tribes of their ability to exercise treaty fishing rights.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Lummi Tribe U& A

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

Lummi Tribe Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Kllalam Tribes Brief

Tulalip Brief

Lower Elwha Tribe Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

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.

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