Here is the opinion in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes, subproceeding 17-02 of United States v. Washington.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding no. 19-01:
Here are the materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (CA9):
Lower court materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) (subproceeding 09-01):
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 93-01:
Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) [subproceeding 11-02]:
Previous lower court court materials here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington [subproceeding 17-03] or Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
Lower court materials here.
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.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-03 (W.D. Wash.):