102 F.4th 955
9th Cir.2024Background
- The Stillaguamish Tribe is a federally recognized tribe in northwestern Washington, signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, which secured tribal fishing rights at their usual and accustomed grounds (U&As).
- The original United States v. Washington litigation in 1974 (the "Boldt decision") adjudicated the scope of tribal fishing rights and established a mechanism for further disputes via continuing federal court jurisdiction.
- Judge Boldt’s initial ruling limited Stillaguamish U&As to the Stillaguamish River and its forks, with no explicit recognition of marine waters; the Tribe has repeatedly sought, through proper procedural sub-proceedings, to expand its recognized U&As.
- In 2017, Stillaguamish initiated a sub-proceeding seeking recognition that its U&As include specific marine waters (Port Susan, Skagit Bay, Saratoga Passage, Penn Cove, Holmes Harbor, Deception Pass).
- The District Court ruled against Stillaguamish after an eight-day bench trial, finding the evidence for marine fishing U&As insufficient, and granted judgment for the opposing parties under FRCP 52(c).
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found the District Court properly applied the controlling law but failed to make sufficiently detailed factual findings, vacating and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the District Court apply the correct legal standard for U&As under Final Decision #1? | Stillaguamish argued the district court failed to apply the correct U&As standard, including drawing inferences from evidence. | Opposing parties argued the district court properly applied the historical U&As standard set by Boldt. | Court agreed the district court applied the correct legal standard. |
| Were the factual findings regarding Stillaguamish river vs. marine fishing U&As clearly erroneous? | Stillaguamish contended that their historical and anthropological evidence established marine fishing rights. | Opponents argued the evidence was speculative and insufficient to meet the preponderance standard. | Court could not affirm due to inadequate factual findings and remanded for further findings. |
| Did the court require improper or excessively strict evidence of fishing at treaty time? | Stillaguamish argued the district court demanded too much direct evidence instead of using reasonable inferences from the historical record. | Opponents maintained the court needed proof by a preponderance of the evidence, consistent with precedent. | Court found no misapplication of the standard but insufficient factual explanation. |
| Is continued federal court jurisdiction appropriate for enforcing the 1974 decree? | Stillaguamish did not challenge jurisdiction; supporting parties argued ongoing jurisdiction is necessary to resolve treaty rights. | Some parties and a concurring judge questioned whether 50-year injunctive oversight remains justified or lawful. | Court raised concerns in concurrence but did not address the issue in this decision; main panel ruled jurisdiction remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (established scope of tribal fishing rights under treaty and set forth process for determining U&As)
- Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, 873 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirmed approach to inferring U&As from historical evidence)
- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010) (further sub-proceedings on boundaries and scope of U&As)
- Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Lummi Nation, 80 F.4th 1056 (9th Cir. 2023) (recent example of inter-tribal fishing rights sub-proceedings under Boldt decree)