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

Tribes and States Sue to Block Sale and Removal of National Archives in Seattle

Here is the complaint in State of Washington v. Vought (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

30 Amended Complaint

32 Opposition

37 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Proposed Form of Injunctive Relief

40 Reply

News coverage:

Washington AG press release: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-coalition-lawsuit-save-national-archives

Indian Country Today: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/tribes-sue-to-stop-relocation-of-rare-documents-3wsWTPg0fka-vOAV1Uoj2g

Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ag-ferguson-with-tribes-and-historic-groups-sues-feds-over-seattle-national-archives-closure/

Spokesman Review: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jan/04/ag-bob-ferguson-sues-to-stop-sale-of-seattle-natio/

Yakama Nation press release:

Press Release_YN_OMB_Seattle Archives Lawsuit (1.4.21) (002)

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.

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:









Federal Court Rejects Effort to Block Lummi Crab Fishery as Unripe

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 18-02 (W.D. Wash.), aka Swinomish Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe:

3 swinomish & tulalip motion for tro

16 upper skagit motion

19 lummi response

27 dct order

Superior Court Finds Upper Skagit Tribe Necessary Party in Declaratory Action

Download Court’s letter opinion in re: Schuyler v. Unsworth & Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston County Cause No. 14-2-02373-9 here.

A member of the Upper Skagit Tribe filed an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief on certain tribal hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Point Elliot.  However, the Court held that the case affects the rights of the Tribe and therefore the case must be dismissed if it cannot be joined within 90 days.

Upper Skagit Tribe Prevails over Suquamish Tribe in U&A Subproceeding

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash., subproceeding 14-01):

37 Suquamish Motion for Summary J

38 Upper Skagit Motion for Summary J

44 Interested Parties Response

45 Upper Skagit Response

47 Suquamish Response

54 Upper Skagit Reply

56 Suquamish Reply

62 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Materials in Tulalip v. Suquamish Subproceeding 05-4

Here are the briefs in United States v. Washington (subproceeding 05-4):

Tulalip Opening Brief

Suquamish Answer Brief

Tulalip Reply

Oral argument audio and video.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Issues Decision in Challenge to Suquamish Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 05-4 (W.D. Wash.):

193 Swinomish Motion for Partial Summary J

195 Suquamish Motion

199 Tulalip Motion

Subp 05-4 Dkt 242 Order Suquamish-1

Materials on subproceeding 05-3 are here.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Suquamish Tribe over Puget Sound Fishing Rights

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s (crabby) opinion in Upper Skagit Tribe v. Washington.

The briefs:

Suquamish Opening Brief

Upper Skagit Tribe Brief

Tulalip Tribes Response Brief

Swinomish Tribe Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Brief

Suquamish Tribe Reply Brief

The key holding:

We conclude that it is at least as likely as not that Judge Boldt meant what he said; the Suquamish treaty territory “include[s] the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River.” This broad, unlimited fishery is what Dr. Lane described in her report and testimony. Dr. Lane stated that marine fisheries “are far more difficult to delimit than fresh waters.” She repeatedly underlined that her report did not, and could not, list all of the usual and accustomed fishing locations of the Suquamish. She noted that the Suquamish had more limited resources in their home area than most tribes, and thus had to travel more extensively to fish.

Dr. Lane said that she had no documentary evidence that the Suquamish fished in the San Juan Islands, but nonetheless found it likely that they did so. Judge Boldt agreed, deciding in the absence of any specific evidence that the Haro and Rosario Straits were part of the Suquamish traditional fishing grounds. This demonstrates a lack of specific evidence would not have precluded Judge Boldt from including Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage in Suquamish’s territory.

And why we think the court is being crabby:

Continue reading