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

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