Here is the petition in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe & Quinault Indian Tribe:
2018-05-21 makah cert petition and appendix
Question presented:
The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit—in conflict with the decisions of this Court and other courts—properly held the Treaty of Olympia confers this expansive “fishing” right.
Lower court materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 09-01 here.
Here are the materials in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes (W.D. Wash.):
27 Suquamish Motion to Dismiss
Here is the opinion in Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation.
From the syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe, and held that the disputed waters west of Whidbey Island, Washington were included in the Lummi Nation’s right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations (“U & A”) under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot.
In United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), Judge Boldt developed a framework for determining U & As for Indian signatories to the Treaty. In Finding of Fact 46, Judge Boldt stated that the U & A for the Lummi Indians “included the marine areas of Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River south to the present
environs of Seattle.”To determine whether the waters west of Whidbey Island were included in the Lummi’s U & A, the panel followed a two-step procedure. At step one, the panel held that Fact 46 was ambiguous because it did not clearly include or exclude the disputed waters. At step two, the panel examined the record before Judge Boldt to clarify his intent, and concluded that the district court erred in excluding the disputed waters
from the Lummi’s U & A. The panel held that the district court improperly imposed a heightened standard in holding that logic or linguistics needed to “compel the conclusion” that contested waters be included in a U & A.
Briefs here.
Here (aka United States v. Washington subproceeding 14-2):
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe.
Briefs are here.
Here is the opinion in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe.
An excerpt:
In this treaty fishing rights case, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (“the Upper Skagit”) filed a Request for Determination as to the geographic scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s (“the Suquamish”) usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U&A”) as determined by Judge Boldt in 1975. Specifically, the Upper Skagit sought a determination that the Suquamish’s U&A determinations do not include Chuckanut Bay, Samish Bay, and a portion of Padilla Bay where the Upper Skagit has its own court-approved U&A determinations (“the Contested Waters”). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did not intend to include the Contested Waters in the Suquamish’s U&A determinations and, accordingly, granted summary judgment to the Upper Skagit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
Briefs here.
Here:
Seattle Human Rights Commission Culvert_OpEd
An excerpt:
The Seattle Human Rights Commission writes in response to the Seattle Times recent editorial “The Supreme Court must clarify culvert ruling,” and seeks to correct inaccuracies regarding tribal treaty rights and the State’s obligation to not impair them. Washington’s tribal nations have lived and fished throughout our State since time immemorial, and their right to do so is protected by treaty. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an exhaustive and well researched opinion, recognized that this right requires the removal of culverts that block fish passage. The State’s decision to seek Supreme Court review of that decision reflects revisionist and troubling effort to weaken treaty rights.
Here:
Oral argument video here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.