Yakama Indian Nation

On September 29, 2008, the Supreme Court will convene for what is known as the long conference. Here is where the Court meets privately to make decisions on the summer backlog of cert petitions. There are EIGHT Indian law-related cert petitions scheduled for review in the long conference. There is a very good chance that one or more of these petitions will be granted.

1. Hawaii v. Office of Indian Affairs (07-1372)

This petition has a fairly good chance to be granted.

The first factor weighing in favor of a grant is that a state government is bringing the petition. The second factor weighing in favor are the three amicus briefs supporting the petition, often an attention getter for the clerks. Moreover, one of the amicus briefs is signed by 30 states and a U.S. territory, yet another point in favor of a grant. The wild card factor is that a similar petition reached the Court in the 2006 Term, but that one was settled out of court and dismissed (Doe v. Kamehameha Schools). Moreover, there is a case similar to Doe that has just been filed, and the Court might want to wait for that one (not sure why).

2. Ho-Chunk Nation v. Wisconsin (07-1402)

I don’t think this one has much chance to be granted.

It’s a sort of an interlocutory appeal, meaning the lower court hasn’t even reached the merits yet. And it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, which doesn’t appear to impress the Justices much. Finally, the petition cites me for the proposition that this is an important case, always a serious mistake. 8)

3. Kemp v. Osage Nation (07-1484)

This has a fairly good chance of being granted, too, but maybe not as good as the Hawaii case.

Kemp is actually the Oklahoma Tax Commission, always a Supreme Court favorite (remember the 1990s, Citizen Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, and Chickasaw Nation?). So, it’s a state government bringing the petition, weighing in favor of a grant. Moreover, the subject matter of the case is state sovereign immunity and the Ex parte Young exception. Again, a factor favoring a grant. But there doesn’t seem to be a split in authority. And the state’s argument that the Tenth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene seems to be a stretch, because this case is about taxation, and that one was about actual title to land.

4. Kickapoo v. Texas (07-1109)

This one has a slight chance for a grant.

I’d have said all along (and I did, I think) that this case has no chance for a grant. And then the US filed an unusual brief arguing for a denial, but making a powerful case for why the CA5 got this one wrong on every level. If the US brought the petition (it didn’t), then maybe there would be a grant on that argument alone. Baffling. Texas initially refused to file a cert opposition (probably because they read my blog entry 🙂 ), but then the Court called for a response.

Still, there’s no split. And other cases involving the same exact question are in the pipeline in Florida and Alabama. The Court will probably let this one percolate below.

5. Klamath Tribes v. PacificCorp (07-1492)

This one has no chance.

First, it’s being brought by an Indian tribe, not a favored petitioner. Second, Klamath is bringing a federal common law cause of action. The Court doesn’t favor those, either. And third, there’s no split in authority. Poor fish. 😦

6. Matheson v. Gregoire (08-23)

Again, no chance.

First, the case is being brought by an individual Indian who is challenging the fact that his tribe entered into a tax agreement with the state. He could challenge the agreement in tribal court (maybe he is), but instead he’s going to federal court. Second, there’s no split at all.

7. South Fork Band v. United States (08-100, 08-231)

No chance.

This is a case trying to reopen parts of the odious United States v. Dann decision from 20 years ago. The Court doesn’t like that, either.

8. United States v. Navajo Nation (07-1410)

Very, very good chance for a grant.

First, the petition is brought by the United States, which is the premier party in the Court’s eyes. I suspect far more than half of the US’s petitions are granted, and I’m sure all but a very few are seriously considered by the Court in conference. Second, this is the continuation of a case the Court thought to be important in 2002, U.S. v. Navajo Nation I. That case (and this one, too) involves a judgment against the United States that could reach one billion dollars, if interest attaches (a mere $600 million if it doesn’t). Third, though the Court technically left open several questions after Navajo Nation I, it strongly stamped down the first theory brought by the Navajo Nation. One suspects the Court doesn’t like seeing a case reaching an outcome it rejected once come back again under a second theory. We could either have an outcome like U.S. v. Mitchell (tribe loses first time, comes back second time and wins with new theory), or N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea (Court repeatedly instructs lower court to find against tribe, only to be forced to do the dirty work itself).

Either way you have a grant.

The federal district court held that the two tribes, which had disputed fishing rights over places along the Columbia River, had to share. aug-2008-dct-order

From the opinion:

The dispute is part of a longstanding case brought by the United States to define certain Indian tribes’ treaty rights to take fish at all usual and accustomed places along the Columbia River and its tributaries. Colville sought to intervene in the case on two occasions, once in 1989 and once in 1999, but its requests were denied. See United States v. Oregon, 29 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Oregon I”). In 2002, instead of moving to intervene yet again, the Colville Wenatchi began fishing at Icicle Creek.

On August 18, 2003, I granted Yakama’s motion for injunctive relief, enjoining Colville and its constituent tribes from fishing at Icicle Creek and holding that Colville was precluded by res judicata from asserting the arguments it raised in opposition to Yakama’s motion. Colville appealed that holding, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case “for trial on the merits.” United States v. State of Oregon, 470 F.3d 809, 818 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Oregon II”). Upon remand from the Ninth Circuit, the matter was tried to the court on May 6, 7 and 8, 2008. Upon conclusion of the trial, Yakama, Colville, the United States, and the State of Washington submitted post-trial briefing.

For the reasons stated below, I find the Wenatchi and Yakama have joint fishing rights to fish at the Wenatshapam Fishery, which is located at the confluence of the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek. Due to the alteration of this site by white settlement, and the fact that the evidence demonstrates fishing on Icicle Creek, in addition to fishing on the Wenatchee River, the nearest location for the Wenatshapam Fishery is the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery on Icicle Creek.

Turtle Talk

2008 Term Preview: The Long Conference — September 29, 2008

Yakama-Colville Dispute over Fishing Territories

U.S. v. Oregon — Denial of Yakama Treaty Rights