944 F.3d 1179
9th Cir.2019Background
- In the 1850s Stevens Treaties reserved tribes the right to fish at their "usual and accustomed" (U&A) grounds; United States v. Washington (Final Decision #1) (Judge Boldt, 1974) made numerous "specific determinations" of tribal U&As and issued an injunction retaining continuing jurisdiction for certain "subproceedings."
- Paragraph 25 of the injunction created procedures: 25(a)(1) (clarification of what Judge Boldt intended) and 25(a)(6) (new determinations of U&As "not specifically determined" by Final Decision #1).
- Paragraph 76 of Final Decision #1 listed the Muckleshoot U&As as primarily upriver and "secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound."
- In Subproceeding 97-1, Judge Rothstein (and the Ninth Circuit on appeal) interpreted Boldt's record to confine the Muckleshoot saltwater U&A to Elliott Bay.
- In Subproceeding 17-2 the Muckleshoot sought to expand saltwater U&As beyond Elliott Bay under Paragraph 25(a)(6); the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (and alternatively on collateral estoppel), and the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Muckleshoot saltwater U&As in Puget Sound were "specifically determined" by Final Decision #1 such that Paragraph 25(a)(6) jurisdiction is unavailable | Muckleshoot: their broader U&A claims were not specifically determined and, after Rothstein's Clarification, they may pursue a new-determinations hearing under 25(a)(6) with new evidence | Respondents: Judge Boldt (as interpreted by Rothstein and affirmed by this Court) effectively limited Muckleshoot saltwater U&As to Elliott Bay, so 25(a)(6) jurisdiction is lacking | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Judge Boldt (as construed in Subproceeding 97-1) specifically determined the Muckleshoot saltwater U&A; no jurisdiction under 25(a)(6) to expand it |
| Whether a tribe may invoke Paragraph 25(a)(6) to introduce new evidence after a Clarification (25(a)(1)) proceeding that narrowed a prior Specific Determination | Muckleshoot: after a Clarification narrows the meaning, the tribe can still seek new determinations under 25(a)(6) and introduce new evidence for areas not then "specifically determined" | Respondents: If Boldt (as clarified) specifically determined the U&A scope, 25(a)(6) is not available; a Clarification that leaves a specific geographic determination bars expansion | Court: Did not reach this question on the merits because it concluded Boldt had already specifically determined the full scope (limited to Elliott Bay), so 25(a)(6) was inapplicable |
| Whether Subproceeding 97-1 collateral estops Muckleshoot from relitigating its U&As in this subproceeding | Muckleshoot: collateral estoppel should not preclude new-determinations claims | Respondents: Prior rulings (Rothstein and Ninth Circuit) preclude relitigation | Court: District court found collateral estoppel as alternative basis; Ninth Circuit affirmed on the specific-determination jurisdictional ground and did not reach collateral-estoppel issue |
| Proper standard of review for interpreting Final Decision #1 and the injunction's subproceedings | Muckleshoot: (implicit) de novo review of district court's interpretation, with right to offer new evidence under 25(a)(6) if available | Respondents: de novo review supports finding Boldt's specific determinations | Court: Applied de novo review and concluded Boldt (as interpreted in Subproceeding 97-1) specifically determined the Muckleshoot saltwater U&A |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (Final Decision #1: Boldt's findings defining tribes' U&A fishing grounds and injunction retaining continuing jurisdiction)
- United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975) (affirming and remanding Boldt's decision)
- Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that if a U&A was "specifically determined" in Final Decision #1, jurisdiction is limited to clarification under Paragraph 25(a)(1), not new determinations under 25(a)(6))
- United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming Rothstein's narrowing of the Muckleshoot saltwater U&A to Elliott Bay)
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1979) (Supreme Court recognition of treaty fishing rights in this legal context)