903 F. Supp. 2d 1187
E.D. Wash.2011Background
- Washington seeks to enforce state hunting laws against Colville Tribe members exercising their 'in common' hunting rights off-reservation on North Half lands.
- The 1891 Agreement reserved to the Tribe a perpetual right to hunt on the North Half; Congress ratified this arrangement through statutes (1892–1911).
- Mr. Johnson, an enrolled Tribal member, was cited for possessing a rifle in a motor vehicle with a round in the magazine, pled guilty, and received a deferred sentence.
- The North Half today includes substantial public ownership (national forest, state trust lands, and wildlife areas), with both Tribe and State regulating hunting and enforcing safety laws.
- The Tribe and Mr. Johnson sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief, challenging the State’s application of hunting-safety laws to the in common rights.
- The court holds that the Tribe may not pursue a § 1983 claim, but Mr. Johnson may, and establishes a four-factor public-safety standard for state regulation of in common rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under § 1983 | Johnson has standing; Tribe lacks standing as parens patriae. | Johnson’s claim mirrors Romeros' individual rights; Tribe lacks § 1983 standing. | Johnson has standing; Tribe cannot pursue § 1983 claim. |
| Application of Heck to Johnson's claim | Heck favorable-termination rule may bar § 1983 relief. | Heck should apply to bar relief if coercive of conviction. | Heck favorable-termination rule does not apply. |
| Tribe’s capacity to sue under § 1983 | Tribe may sue as parens patriae for its members’ rights. | Tribe cannot sue as a 'person' or as parens patriae for communal rights. | Tribe cannot pursue a § 1983 claim. |
| Standards for state regulation of in common rights | State may regulate in common rights only to conserve safety under broad standards. | State need only meet a broader set of criteria for time/place/manner restrictions. | Court adopts four public-safety standards: non-discriminatory, reasonably necessary to prevent a public-safety threat, necessary in interest of public safety, and applicable to the Tribe. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 2005) (treaty rights are communal; individuals lack § 1983 claims for communal rights)
- Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1991) (recognized potential cognizable § 1983 claims for treaty rights under specified circumstances)
- Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians, 538 U.S. 701 (Supreme Court 2003) (tribe cannot bring § 1983 action to obtain records; framework for 'person' status depends on legislative environment)
- Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 1975) (defines 'appropriate standards' for nondiscriminatory conservation measures affecting in common rights)
- Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game (Puyallup I), 391 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court 1968) (nondiscriminatory measures for conserving resources preserved; in common rights context)
- Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game (Puyallup II), 414 U.S. 44 (Supreme Court 1973) (addressed state regulation of fishing rights; nondiscrimination and conservation framework)
- United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (analogy of in common rights to cotenancy; framework for state-trust regulation)
- Fishing Vessel, U.S. v. Washington, 443 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1979) (non-destruction principle in common rights; limits on state and tribe actions)
- Gallaher, 275 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal prosecutions; distinction from state regulation of in common rights)
- United States v. Fox, 573 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2009) (federal statute vs. treaty-right analysis; distinguishable from state regulation of in common rights)
- Washington v. Olney, 117 Wash. App. 524 (2003) (state appellate decision cited regarding public-safety standards in off-reservation rights)