WASHINGTON ET AL. v. WASHINGTON STATE COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL ASSOCIATION ET AL.
No. 77-983
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28, 1979-Decided July 2, 1979
443 U.S. 658
*Together with Washington et al. v. Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. et al., also on certiorari to the same court (see this Court‘s Rule 23 (5)); and No. 78-119, Washington et al. v. United States et al., and No. 78-139, Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. et al. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (United States et al., Real Parties in Interest), on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Slade Gorton, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for the State of Washington. With him on the briefs were Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Attorney General, James M. Johnson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Timothy R. Malone, Assistant Attorney General. Philip A. Lacovara argued the cause for the Puget Sound Gillnetters Association et al. With him on the briefs were Charles E. Yates, Douglas Fryer, Joseph T. Mijich, and Gerald Goldman. Richard W. Pierson filed a brief for the Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association in all cases.
Louis F. Claiborne argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Moorman, Deputy Solicitor General
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
To extinguish the last group of conflicting claims to lands lying west of the Cascade Mountains and north of the Columbia River in what is now the State of Washington,1 the United States entered into a series of treaties with Indian
The principal question presented by this litigation concerns the character of that treaty right to take fish. Various other issues are presented, but their disposition depends on the answer to the principal question. Before answering any of these questions, or even stating the issues with more precision, we shall briefly describe the anadromous fisheries of the Pacific Northwest, the treaty negotiations, and the principal components of the litigation complex that led us to grant these three related petitions for certiorari.
I
Anadromous fish hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean where they are reared and reach mature size, and eventually complete their life cycle by returning to the fresh-water place of their origin to spawn. Different species have different life cycles, some spending several years and traveling great distances in the ocean before returning to spawn and some even returning to spawn on more than one occasion before dying.
Regulation of the anadromous fisheries of the Northwest is nonetheless complicated by the different habits of the various species of salmon and trout involved, by the variety of methods of taking the fish, and by the fact that a run of fish may pass through a series of different jurisdictions.3 Another complexity arises from the fact that the State of Washington has attempted to reserve one species, steelhead trout, for sport fishing and therefore conferred regulatory jurisdiction over that species upon its Department of Game, whereas the various species of salmon are primarily harvested by commercial fishermen and are managed by the State‘s Department of Fisheries. Id., at 383-385, 389-399. Moreover, adequate regulation not only must take into account the potentially
The anadromous fish constitute a natural resource of great economic value to the State of Washington. Millions of salmon, with an average weight of from 4 or 5 to about 20 pounds, depending on the species, are harvested each year. Over 6,600 nontreaty fishermen and about 800 Indians make their livelihood by commercial fishing; moreover, some 280,000 individuals are licensed to engage in sport fishing in the State.4 Id., at 387. See id., at 399.
II
One hundred and twenty-five years ago when the relevant treaties were signed, anadromous fish were even more important to most of the population of western Washington than they are today. At that time, about three-fourths of the approximately 10,000 inhabitants of the area were Indians. Although in some respects the cultures of the different tribes varied-some bands of Indians, for example, had little or no tribal organization5 while others, such as the Makah and the Yakima, were highly organized-all of them shared a vital and unifying dependence on anadromous fish. Id., at 350. See Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept., 433 U.S. 165, 179 (1977) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting in part).
All of the treaties were negotiated by Isaac Stevens, the first Governor and first Superintendent of Indian Affairs of the Washington Territory, and a small group of advisers. Contemporaneous documents make it clear that these people recognized the vital importance of the fisheries to the Indians and wanted to protect them from the risk that non-Indian settlers might seek to monopolize their fisheries. Id., at 355, 363.9 There is no evidence of the precise understanding the
Referring to the negotiations with the Yakima Nation, by far the largest of the Indian tribes, the District Court found:
At the treaty council the United States negotiators promised, and the Indians understood, that the Yakimas would forever be able to continue the same off-reservation food gathering and fishing practices as to time, place, method, species and extent as they had or were exercising. The Yakimas relied on these promises and they formed a material and basic part of the treaty and of the Indians’
understanding of the meaning of the treaty. Id., at 381 (record citations omitted).
See also id., at 363 (similar finding regarding negotiations with the Makah Tribe).
The Indians understood that non-Indians would also have the right to fish at their off-reservation fishing sites. But this was not understood as a significant limitation on their right to take fish.12 Because of the great abundance of fish and the limited population of the area, it simply was not contemplated that either party would interfere with the other‘s fishing rights. The parties accordingly did not see the need and did not intend to regulate the taking of fish by either Indians or non-Indians, nor was future regulation foreseen. Id., at 334, 355, 357.
Indeed, for several decades after the treaties were signed, Indians continued to harvest most of the fish taken from the waters of Washington, and they moved freely about the Territory and later the State in search of that resource. Id., at 334. The size of the fishery resource continued to obviate the need during the period to regulate the taking of fish by either Indians or non-Indians. Id., at 352. Not until major economic developments in canning and processing occurred in the last few years of the 19th century did a significant non-Indian fishery develop.13 It was as a consequence of these
In sum, it is fair to conclude that when the treaties were negotiated, neither party realized or intended that their agreement would determine whether, and if so how, a resource that had always been thought inexhaustible would be allocated between the native Indians and the incoming settlers when it later became scarce.
III
Unfortunately, that resource has now become scarce, and the meaning of the Indians’ treaty right to take fish has accordingly become critical. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington have issued conflicting decisions on its meaning. In addition, their holdings raise important ancillary questions that will appear from a brief review of this extensive litigation.
The federal litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in 1970. The United States, on its own behalf and as trustee for seven Indian tribes, brought suit against the State of Washington
During the extensive pretrial proceedings, four different interpretations of the critical treaty language were advanced. Of those, three proceeded from the assumption that the language required some allocation to the Indians of a share of the runs of fish passing through their traditional fishing areas each year. The tribes themselves contended that the treaties had reserved a pre-existing right to as many fish as their commercial and subsistence needs dictated. The United States argued that the Indians were entitled either to a 50% share of the “harvestable” fish that originated in and returned to the “case area” and passed through their fishing places,15 or to their needs, whichever was less. The Department of Fisheries agreed that the Indians were entitled to “a fair and equitable share” stated in terms of a percentage of the harvestable salmon in the area; ultimately it proposed a share of “one-third.”
Only the Game Department thought the treaties provided no assurance to the Indians that they could take some portion
The District Court agreed with the parties who advocated an allocation to the Indians, and it essentially agreed with the United States as to what that allocation should be. It held that the Indians were then entitled to a 45% to 50% share of the harvestable fish that will at some point pass through recognized tribal fishing grounds in the case area.16 The share was to be calculated on a river-by-river, run-by-run basis, subject to certain adjustments. Fish caught by Indians for ceremonial and subsistence purposes as well as fish caught within a reservation were excluded from the calculation of the tribes’ share.17 In addition, in order to compensate for fish caught outside of the case area, i. e., beyond the State‘s jurisdiction, the court made an “equitable adjustment” to increase the allocation to the Indians. The court left it to the individual tribes involved to agree among themselves on how best to divide the Indian share of runs that pass through the usual and accustomed grounds of more than one tribe, and it postponed until a later date the proper accounting for hatchery-bred fish. 384 F. Supp., at 416-417; 459 F. Supp.,
The injunction entered by the District Court required the Department of Fisheries (Fisheries) to adopt regulations protecting the Indians’ treaty rights. 384 F. Supp., at 416-417. After the new regulations were promulgated, however, they were immediately challenged by private citizens in suits commenced in the Washington state courts. The State Supreme Court, in two cases that are here in consolidated form in No. 77-983, ultimately held that Fisheries could not comply with the federal injunction. Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. v. Moos, 88 Wash. 2d 677, 565 P. 2d 1151 (1977); Fishing Vessel Assn. v. Tollefson, 89 Wash. 2d 276, 571 P. 2d 1373 (1977).
As a matter of federal law, the state court first accepted the Game Department‘s and rejected the District Court‘s interpretation of the treaties and held that they did not give the Indians a right to a share of the fish runs, and second concluded that recognizing special rights for the Indians would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinions might also be read to hold, as a matter of state
When Fisheries was ordered by the state courts to abandon its attempt to promulgate and enforce regulations in compliance with the federal court‘s decree-and when the Game Department simply refused to comply-the District Court entered a series of orders enabling it, with the aid of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington and various federal law enforcement agencies, directly to supervise those aspects of the State‘s fisheries necessary to the preservation of treaty fishing rights. 459 F. Supp. 1020. The District Court‘s power to take such direct action and, in doing so, to enjoin persons who were not parties to the proceeding was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals
Because of the widespread defiance of the District Court‘s orders, this litigation has assumed unusual significance. We granted certiorari in the state and federal cases to interpret this important treaty provision and thereby to resolve the conflict between the state and federal courts regarding what, if any, right the Indians have to a share of the fish, to address the implications of international regulation of the fisheries in the area, and to remove any doubts about the federal court‘s power to enforce its orders. 439 U.S. 909.
IV
The treaties secure a “right of taking fish.” The pertinent articles provide:
“The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shell fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.”21
Because the sparse contemporaneous written materials refer primarily to assuring access to fishing sites “in common with all citizens of the Territory,” the State of Washington and the commercial fishing associations, having all adopted the Game Department‘s original position, argue that it was merely access that the negotiators guaranteed. It is equally plausible to conclude, however, that the specific provision for access was intended to secure a greater right-a right to harvest a share of the runs of anadromous fish that at the time the treaties were signed were so plentiful that no one could question the Indians’ capacity to take whatever quantity they needed. Indeed, a fair appraisal of the purpose of the treaty negotiations, the language of the treaties, and this Court‘s prior construction of the treaties, mandates that conclusion.
A treaty, including one between the United States and an Indian tribe, is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations. E. g., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553. When the signatory nations have not been at war and neither is the vanquished, it is reasonable to assume that they negotiated as equals at arm‘s length. There is no reason to doubt that this assumption applies to the treaties at issue here. See 520 F.2d, at 684.
Accordingly, it is the intention of the parties, and not solely that of the superior side, that must control any attempt to interpret the treaties. When Indians are involved, this Court has long given special meaning to this rule. It has held that the United States, as the party with the presumptively su-
Governor Stevens and his associates were well aware of the “sense” in which the Indians were likely to view assurances regarding their fishing rights. During the negotiations, the vital importance of the fish to the Indians was repeatedly emphasized by both sides, and the Governor‘s promises that the treaties would protect that source of food and commerce were crucial in obtaining the Indians’ assent. See supra, at 666-668. It is absolutely clear, as Governor Stevens himself said, that neither he nor the Indians intended that the latter “should be excluded from their ancient fisheries,” see n. 9, supra, and it is accordingly inconceivable that either party deliberately agreed to authorize future settlers to crowd the Indians out of any meaningful use of their accustomed places to fish. That each individual Indian would share an “equal opportunity” with thousands of newly arrived individual settlers is totally foreign to the spirit of the negotiations.22 Such a “right,”
It is true that the words “in common with” may be read either as nothing more than a guarantee that individual Indians would have the same right as individual non-Indians or as securing an interest in the fish runs themselves. If we were to construe these words by reference to 19th-century property concepts, we might accept the former interpretation, although even “learned lawyers” of the day would probably have offered differing interpretations of the three words.23
This interpretation is confirmed by additional language in the treaties. The fishing clause speaks of “securing” certain fishing rights, a term the Court has previously interpreted as synonymous with “reserving” rights previously exercised. Winans, 198 U. S., at 381. See also New York ex rel. Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U. S. 556, 563-564 (1916). Because the Indians had al- during the period. First, a “common of fishery” meant a limited right, acquired from the previously exclusive owner of certain fishing rights (in this case the Indians), “of taking fish in common with certain others in waters flowing through [the grantor‘s] land.” J. Gould, Laws of Waters § 183 (3d ed. 1900) (emphasis added); see 3 Kent, supra, at 410. Under that understanding of the language, it would hardly make sense that the Indians effectively relinquished all of their fishing rights by granting a merely nonexclusive right.
Even more to the point, the United States had previously used the “in common with” language in two treaties with Britain, including one signed in 1854, that dealt with fishing rights in certain waters adjoining the United States and Canada.
In our view, the purpose and language of the treaties are unambiguous; they secure the Indians’ right to take a share of each run of fish that passes through tribal fishing areas. But our prior decisions provide an even more persuasive reason why this interpretation is not open to question. For notwithstanding the bitterness that this litigation has engendered, the principal issue involved is virtually a “matter decided” by our previous holdings.
The Court has interpreted the fishing clause in these treaties on six prior occasions. In all of these cases the Court placed a relatively broad gloss on the Indians’ fishing rights and—more or less explicitly—rejected the State‘s “equal opportunity” approach; in the earliest and the three most recent cases, moreover, we adopted essentially the interpretation that the United States is reiterating here.
In United States v. Winans, supra, the respondent, having acquired title to property on the Columbia River and having obtained a license to use a “fish wheel“—a device capable of catching salmon by the ton and totally destroying a run of fish—asserted the right to exclude the Yakimas from one of their “usual and accustomed” places. The Circuit
“[I]t was decided [below] that the Indians acquired no rights but what any inhabitant of the Territory or State would have. Indeed, acquired no rights but such as they would have without the treaty. This is certainly an impotent outcome to negotiations and a convention; which seemed to promise more and give the word of the Nation for more. . . . How the treaty in question was understood may be gathered from the circumstances.
“The right to resort to the fishing places in controversy was a part of larger rights possessed by the Indians, upon the exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed. New conditions came into existence, to which those rights had to be accommodated. Only a limitation of them, however, was necessary and intended, not a taking away. In other words, the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them—a reservation of those not granted. And the form of the instrument and its language was adapted to that purpose. . . . There was an exclusive right to fishing reserved within certain boundaries. There was a right outside of those boundaries reserved ‘in common with citizens of the Territory.’ As a mere right, it was not exclusive in the Indians. Citizens might share it, but the Indians were secured in its enjoyment by a special provision of means for its exercise. They were given ‘the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places,’ and the right ‘of erecting temporary buildings for curing them.’ The contingency of the future ownership of the lands, therefore, was foreseen and provided for—in other
words, the Indians were given a right in the land—the right of crossing it to the river—the right to occupy it to the extent and for the purpose mentioned. No other conclusion would give effect to the treaty.” 198 U. S., at 380-381.
See also Seufert Bros., 249 U. S., at 198, and Tulee, 315 U. S., at 684, both of which repeated this analysis, in holding that treaty Indians had rights, “beyond those which other citizens may enjoy,” to fish without paying license fees in ceded areas and even in accustomed fishing places lying outside of the lands ceded by the Indians. See n. 22, supra.
But even more significant than the language in Winans is its actual disposition. The Court not only upheld the Indians’ right of access to respondent‘s private property but also ordered the Circuit Court on remand to devise some “adjustment and accommodation” that would protect them from total exclusion from the fishery. 198 U. S., at 384. Although the accommodation it suggested by reference to the Solicitor General‘s brief in the case is subject to interpretation, it clearly included removal of enough of the fishing wheels to enable some fish to escape and be available to Indian fishermen upstream. Brief for United States, O. T. 1904, No. 180, pp. 54-56. In short, it assured the Indians a share of the fish.
In the more recent litigation over this treaty language between the Puyallup Tribe and the Washington Department of Game,24 the Court in the context of a dispute over rights to the run of steelhead trout on the Puyallup River reaffirmed both of the holdings that may be drawn from Winans—the treaty guarantees the Indians more than simply the “equal opportunity” along with all of the citizens of the State to catch fish, and it in fact assures them some portion of each
In Puyallup I, the Court sustained the State‘s power to impose nondiscriminatory regulations on treaty fishermen so long as they were “necessary” for the conservation of the various species. In so holding, the Court again explicitly rejected the equal-opportunity theory. Although nontreaty fishermen might be subjected to any reasonable state fishing regulation serving any legitimate purpose, treaty fishermen are immune from all regulation save that required for conservation.25
When the Department of Game sought to impose a total ban on commercial net fishing for steelhead, the Court held in Puyallup II that such regulation was not a “reasonable and necessary conservation measure” and would deny the Indians
On remand, the Washington state courts held that 45% of the steelhead run was allocable to commercial net fishing by the Indians. We shall later discuss how that specific percentage was determined; what is material for present purposes is the recognition, upheld by this Court in Puyallup III, that the treaty secured the Tribe‘s right to a substantial portion of the run, and not merely a right to compete with nontreaty fishermen on an individual basis.26
Puyallup III also made it clear that the Indians could not rely on their treaty right to exclude others from access to certain fishing sites to deprive other citizens of the State of a “fair apportionment” of the runs. For although it is clear that the Tribe may exclude non-Indians from access to fishing
Not only all six of our cases interpreting the relevant treaty language but all federal courts that have interpreted the treaties in recent times have reached the foregoing conclusions, see Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899, 908, 911 (Ore. 1969) (citing cases), as did the Washington Supreme Court itself prior to the present litigation. State v. Satiacum, 50 Wash. 2d 513, 523-524, 314 P. 2d 400, 406 (1957). A like interpretation, moreover, has been followed by the Court with respect to hunting rights explicitly secured by treaty to Indians “in common with all other persons,” Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194, 205-206, and to water rights that were merely implicitly secured to the Indians by treaties reserving land—treaties that the Court enforced by ordering an apportionment to the Indians of enough water to meet their subsistence and cultivation needs. Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546, 598-601 (1963), following United States v. Powers, 305 U. S. 527, 528-533 (1939); Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 576 (1908).
The purport of our cases is clear. Nontreaty fishermen may not rely on property law concepts, devices such as the fish wheel, license fees, or general regulations to deprive the Indians of a fair share of the relevant runs of anadromous fish in the case area. Nor may treaty fishermen rely on their exclusive right of access to the reservations to destroy the rights of other “citizens of the Territory.” Both sides have
V
We also agree with the Government that an equitable measure of the common right should initially divide the harvestable portion of each run that passes through a “usual and accustomed” place into approximately equal treaty and nontreaty shares, and should then reduce the treaty share if tribal needs may be satisfied by a lesser amount. Although this method of dividing the resource, unlike the right to some division, is not mandated by our prior cases, it is consistent with the 45%–55% division arrived at by the Washington state courts, and affirmed by this Court, in Puyallup III with respect to the steelhead run on the Puyallup River. The trial court in the Puyallup litigation reached those figures essentially by starting with a 50% allocation based on the Indians’ reliance on the fish for their livelihoods and then adjusting slightly downward due to other relevant factors. App. to Pet. for Cert. in Puyallup III, O. T. 1976, No. 76-423, pp. C-56 to C-57. The District Court took a similar tack in this case, i. e., by starting with a 50-50 division and adjusting slightly downward on the Indians’ side when it became clear that they did not need a full 50%. 384 F. Supp., at 402, 416-417; 459 F. Supp., at 1101; 573 F. 2d, at 1129.
The division arrived at by the District Court is also consistent with our earlier decisions concerning Indian treaty rights to scarce natural resources. In those cases, after determining that at the time of the treaties the resource involved was necessary to the Indians’ welfare, the Court typically ordered a trial judge or special master, in his discretion, to devise some apportionment that assured that the Indians’ reasonable livelihood needs would be met. Arizona
Thus, it first concluded that at the time the treaties were signed, the Indians, who comprised three-fourths of the territorial population, depended heavily on anadromous fish as a source of food, commerce, and cultural cohesion. Indeed, it found that the non-Indian population depended on Indians to catch the fish that the former consumed. See supra, at 664-669, and n. 7. Only then did it determine that the Indians’ present-day subsistence and commercial needs should be met, subject, of course, to the 50% ceiling. 384 F. Supp., at 342-343.
It bears repeating, however, that the 50% figure imposes a maximum but not a minimum allocation. As in Arizona v. California and its predecessor cases, the central principle here must be that Indian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood—that is to say, a moderate living. Accordingly, while the maximum possible allocation to the Indians is fixed at 50%,27 the minimum is not; the latter
Although the District Court‘s exercise of its discretion, as slightly modified by the Court of Appeals, see n. 18, supra, is in most respects unobjectionable, we are not satisfied that all of the adjustments it made to its division are consistent with the preceding analysis.
The District Court determined that the fish taken by the Indians on their reservations should not be counted against their share. It based this determination on the fact that Indians have the exclusive right under the treaties to fish on their reservations. But this fact seems to us to have no greater significance than the fact that some nontreaty fishermen may have exclusive access to fishing sites that are not “usual and accustomed” places. Shares in the fish runs should not be affected by the place where the fish are taken. Cf. Puyallup III, 433 U. S., at 173-177.28 We therefore disagree with the District Court‘s exclusion of the Indians’ on-reservation catch from their portion of the runs.29
This same rationale, however, validates the Court-of-Appeals-modified equitable adjustment for fish caught outside the jurisdiction of the State by nontreaty fishermen from the State of Washington. See n. 18, supra, and accompanying text. So long as they take fish from identifiable runs that are destined for traditional tribal fishing grounds, such persons may not rely on the location of their take to justify excluding it from their share. Although it is true that the fish involved are caught in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, rather than of the State, see
On the other hand, as long as there are enough fish to satisfy the Indians’ ceremonial and subsistence needs, we see no justification for the District Court‘s exclusion from the treaty share of fish caught for these purposes. We need not now decide whether priority for such uses would be required in a period of short supply in order to carry out the purposes of the treaty. See 384 F. Supp., at 343. For present purposes, we merely hold that the total catch—rather than the commercial catch—is the measure of each party‘s right.30
Accordingly, any fish (1) taken in Washington waters or in United States waters off the coast of Washington, (2) taken from runs of fish that pass through the Indians’ usual and accustomed fishing grounds, and (3) taken by either members of the Indian tribes that are parties to this litigation, on the one hand, or by non-Indian citizens of Washington, on the other hand, shall count against that party‘s respective share of the fish.
VI
Regardless of the Indians’ other fishing rights under the treaties, the State argues that an agreement between Canada and the United States pre-empts their rights with respect to the sockeye and pink salmon runs on the Fraser River.
In 1930, the United States and Canada agreed that the catch of Fraser River salmon should be equally divided between Canadian and American fishermen.
In the United States, pursuant to statute and Presidential designation, enforcement of those regulations is vested in the
The Fraser River salmon run passes through certain “usual and accustomed” places of treaty tribes. The Indians have therefore claimed a share of these runs. Consistently with its basic interpretation of the Indian treaties, the District Court in its original decision held that the tribes are entitled to up to one-half of the American share of any run that passes through their “usual and accustomed” places. To implement that holding, the District Court also entered an order authorizing the use by Indians of certain gear prohibited by IPSFC regulations then in force. 384 F. Supp., at 392-393, 411. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 520 F. 2d, at 689-690, and we denied certiorari. 423 U. S. 1086.
In later proceedings commenced in 1975, the State of Washington contended in the District Court that any Indian rights to Fraser River salmon were extinguished either implicitly by the later agreement with Canada or more directly by the IPSFC regulations promulgated pursuant to those agreements insofar as they are inconsistent with the District Court‘s order. The State‘s claim was rejected by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. 459 F. Supp., at 1050-1056; 573 F. 2d, at 1120-1121.
First, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the Convention itself does not implicitly extinguish the Indians’ treaty rights. Absent explicit statutory language, we have been extremely reluctant to find congressional abrogation of treaty rights, e. g., Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U. S. 404, and there is no reason to do so here. Indeed, the Canadian Government has long exempted Canadian Indians from regu-
We also agree with the United States that the conflict between the District Court‘s order and IPSFC does not present us with a justiciable issue. The initial conflict occasioned by the regulations for the 1975 season has been mooted by the passage of time, and there is little prospect that a similar conflict will revive and yet evade review. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 316. Since 1975, the United States, in order to protect the Indian rights, has exercised its power under Art. VI of the Convention and refused to give the necessary approval to those portions of the IPSFC regulations that affected Indian fishing rights. Those regulations have accordingly not gone into effect in the United States. The Indians’ fishing rights and responsibilities have instead been the subject of separate regulations promulgated by the Interior Department, under its general Indian powers,
VII
In addition to their challenges to the District Court‘s basic construction of the treaties, and to the scope of its allocation of fish to treaty fishermen, the State and the commercial fishing associations have advanced two objections to various remedial orders entered by the District Court.32 It is claimed that
These objections are difficult to evaluate in view of the representations to this Court by the Attorney General of the State that definitive resolution of the basic federal question of construction of the treaties will both remove any state-law impediment to enforcement of the State‘s obligations under the treaties,34 and enable the State and Fisheries to carry
The representations of the Attorney General are not binding on the courts and legislature of the State, although we assume they are authoritative within its executive branch. Moreover, the State continues to argue that the District Court exceeded its authority when it assumed control of the fisheries in the State, and the commercial fishing groups
Whether Game and Fisheries may be ordered actually to promulgate regulations having effect as a matter of state law may well be doubtful. But the District Court may prescind that problem by assuming direct supervision of the fisheries if state recalcitrance or state-law barriers should be continued. It is therefore absurd to argue, as do the fishing associations, both that the state agencies may not be ordered to implement the decree and also that the District Court may not itself issue detailed remedial orders as a substitute for state supervision. The federal court unquestionably has the power to enter the various orders that state official and private parties have chosen to ignore, and even to displace local enforcement of those orders if necessary to remedy the violations of
In short, we trust that the spirit of cooperation motivating the Attorney General‘s representation will be confirmed by the conduct of state officials. But if it is not, the District Court has the power to undertake the necessary remedial steps and to enlist the aid of the appropriate federal law enforcement agents in carrying out those steps. Moreover, the comments by the Court of Appeals strongly imply that it is prepared to uphold the use of stern measures to require respect for federal-court orders.36
The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington are vacated and the respective causes are remanded to those courts for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, except that the judgment in United States v. Washington, 573 F. 2d 1118 (the International Fisheries case) is affirmed.
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting in part.
I join Parts I-III of the Court‘s opinion. I am not in agreement, however, with the Court‘s interpretation of the treaties
I
At issue in these cases is the meaning of language found in six similar Indian treaties negotiated and signed in 1854 and 1855.1 Each of the treaties provides substantially that “[t]he right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing.”2 The question before us is whether this “common” fishing right is a right only of access to usual and accustomed fishing sites for the purpose of fishing there, or includes the greater right to exclude others from taking a particular portion of the fish that pass through the sites. As the Court observes, at the time the treaties were signed there was no need to address this question, for the surfeit of fish made lack of access to fishing areas the only constraint upon supply. Nonetheless, I believe that the compelling inference to be drawn from the language and history of the treaties is that the Indians sought and retained only the right to go to
Nothing in the language of the treaties indicates that any party understood that constraints would be placed on the amount of fish that anyone could take, or that the Indians would be guaranteed a percentage of the catch. Quite to the contrary, the language confers upon non-Indians precisely the same right to fish that it confers upon Indians, even in those areas where the Indians traditionally had fished. United States v. Winans, 198 U. S. 371 (1905). As it cannot be argued that Congress intended to guarantee non-Indians any specified percentage of the available fish, there is neither force nor logic to the argument that the same language—the “right of taking fish“—does guarantee such a percentage to Indians.
This conclusion is confirmed by the language used in the treaty negotiated with the Yakima Tribe, which explicitly includes what apparently is implicit in each of the treaties: the Indians’ right to take fish on their reservations is exclusive. Thus, the Yakima Treaty provides that “[t]he exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory....”
In addition to the language of the treaties, the historical setting in which they were negotiated supports the inference that the fishing rights secured for the Indians were rights of access alone. The primary purpose of the six treaties negotiated by Governor Stevens was to resolve growing disputes between the settlers claiming title to land in the Washington Territory under the Land Donation Act of 1850,
The negotiators apparently realized, however, that restricting the Indians to relatively small tracts of land might interfere with their securing food. See letter of George Gibbs to Captain M‘Clellan, App. 326 (“[The Indians] require the liberty of motion for the purpose of seeking, in their proper season, roots, berries, and fish“). This necessary “liberty of motion” was jeopardized by the title claims of the settlers whose land abutted—or would abut—the waterways from which fish traditionally had been caught. Thus, in Governor Stevens’ report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, he noted the tension between the land rights afforded settlers under the 1850 Land Donation Act and the Indians’ need to have some access to the fisheries. Although he expressed the view that “[i]t never could have been the intention of Congress that Indians should be excluded from their ancient fisheries,” he noted that “no condition to this effect was inserted in the donation act,” and therefore recommended the question “should be set at rest by law.” Report of Governor Stevens to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, App. 327. Viewed within this historical context, the common fishing right reserved to the Indians by the treaties of 1854 and 1855 could only have been the right, over and above their exclusive fishing right on their reservations, to roam off the reservations in order to reach fish at the locations traditionally used by the Indians for this purpose. On the other hand, there is no historical indication that any of the parties to the treaties understood that the Indians would be specifically guaranteed some set portion of the fisheries to which they traditionally had had access.
II
Prior decisions of this Court have prevented the dilution of these treaty rights, but none has addressed the issue now before us. I read these decisions as supporting the interpretation set forth above. This is particularly true of United States v. Winans, supra, the case most directly relevant. In
“[The treaties] reserved rights . . . to every individual Indian, as though named therein. They imposed a servitude upon every piece of land as though described therein. There was an exclusive right of fishing reserved within certain boundaries. There was a right outside of those boundaries reserved ‘in common with citizens of the Territory.’ As a mere right, it was not exclusive in the Indians. Citizens might share it, but the Indians were secured in its enjoyment by a special provision of means for its exercise. They were given ‘the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places,’ and the right ‘of erecting temporary buildings for curing them.’ The contingency of the future ownership of the lands, therefore, was foreseen and provided for—in other words, the Indians were given a right in the land—the right of crossing it to the river—the right to occupy it to the extent and for the purpose mentioned. No other conclusion would give effect to the treaty.” Id., at 381 (emphasis added).
The Court thus viewed these treaties as intended to “giv[e] a right in the land“—a “servitude” upon all non-Indian land to enable Indians to fish “in common with citizens of the Territory.” The focus was on access to the traditional fishing areas for the purpose of enjoying the “right of fishing.” Ibid. The Winans Court concluded, on the facts before it, that the right of access to fish in these areas had been abridged. It stated that “[i]n the actual taking of
Nor do the Puyallup cases interpret the treaties to require that any specified proportion of the catch be reserved for Indians. Indeed, Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept., 391 U. S. 392 (1968) (Puyallup I), consistently with Winans, described the right of Indians under the treaties as “the right to fish ‘at all usual and accustomed places.‘” 391 U. S., at 398.5 The issue before the Court in Puyallup I was the extent to which the State could regulate fishing. It held:
“[T]he ‘right’ to fish outside the reservation was a treaty
‘right’ that could not be qualified or conditioned by the State. But ‘the time and manner of fishing . . . necessary for the conservation of fish,’ not being defined or established by the treaty, were within the reach of state power.” Id., at 399.
The Court today finds support for its views in Puyallup I because the Court there recognized that, apart from conservation measures, the State could not impose restrictive regulations on the treaty rights of Indians. But it does not follow from this that an affirmative right to a specified percentage of the catch is guaranteed by the treaties to Indians or to non-Indians, for the Court misapprehends the nature of the basic right sought to be preserved by Congress. This, as noted above, was a right of the Indians to reach their usual and accustomed fishing areas. Put differently, this right, described in Winans as a servitude or right over land not owned by the Indians, entitles the Indians to trespass on any land when necessary to reach their traditional fishing areas, and is a right not enjoyed by non-Indian residents of the area.
In permitting the State to place limitations on the Indians’ access rights when conservation so requires, the Court went further in Puyallup I and suggested that even regulations thus justified would have to satisfy the requirements of “equal protection implicit in the phrase ‘in common with.‘” 391 U. S., at 403. Accordingly, in Washington Game Dept. v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U. S. 44 (1973) (Puyallup II), we considered whether the conservation measures taken by the State had been evenhanded in the treatment of the Indians. At issue was a Washington State ban on all net fishing—by both Indians and non-Indians—for steelhead trout in the Puyallup River. According to testimony before the trial court, the annual run of steelhead trout in the Puyallup River was between 16,000 and 18,000, while unlimited sport fishing would result in the taking of between 12,000 and 14,000 steelhead annually. Because the escape of at least 25% of the entire
We held in Puyallup II that the ban on net fishing, as it applied to Indians covered by treaty, was an infringement of their rights. The State in the name of conservation was discriminating against the Indians “because all Indian net fishing is barred and only hook-and-line fishing entirely pre-empted by non-Indians, is allowed.” Id., at 48. Because “[o]nly an expert could fairly estimate what degree of net fishing plus fishing by hook and line would allow the escapement of fish necessary for perpetuation of the species,” ibid., we remanded to the Washington courts for a fair apportionment of the steelhead run between Indian net fishing and non-Indian sport fishing.
Relying upon the reference in Puyallup II to “apportionment,” the Court expansively reads the decision in that case as strongly implying, if not holding, that the catch at Indians’ “accustomed” fishing sites must be apportioned between Indian and non-Indian fishermen. This view certainly is not a necessary reading of Puyallup II. Indeed, I view it as a quite unjustified extension of that case. Puyallup II addressed an extremely narrow situation: where there had been “discrimination” by state regulations under which “all Indian net fishing [was] barred and only hook-and-line fishing entirely pre-empted by non-Indians, [was] allowed.” Ibid. In any event, to the extent language in Puyallup II may be read as supporting some general apportionment of the catch, it is dictum that is plainly incompatible with the language and historical understanding of these treaties.6
III
In my view, the District Court below—and now this Court—has formulated an apportionment doctrine that cannot be squared with the language or history of the treaties, or indeed with the prior decisions of this Court. The application of this doctrine, and particularly the construction of the term “in common” as requiring a basic 50-50 apportionment, is likely to result in an extraordinary economic windfall to
I would hold that the treaties give to the Indians several significant rights that should be respected. As made clear in Winans, the purpose of the treaties was to assure to Indians the right of access over private lands so that they could continue to fish at their usual and accustomed fishing grounds. Indians also have the exclusive right to fish on their reservations, and are guaranteed enough fish to satisfy their ceremonial and subsistence needs. Moreover, as subsequently construed, the treaties exempt Indians from state regulation (including the payment of license fees) except as necessary
Notes
The Government‘s brief in Winans, cited approvingly by the Court in that case, indicates that the Government also understood the treaty to guarantee nothing more than access rights to traditional fishing locations. In that brief, the Government advocated only “a way of easy access, free ingress and egress to and from the fishing grounds.” Brief for Appellants, O. T. 1904, No. 180, p. 56.
This interpretation of Winans was unequivocally affirmed by the Court a short time later in Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 194 (1919). At issue in that case was whether Indians from the Yakima Nation had the right under their treaty to cross the Columbia River and fish from the south bank, which admittedly had belonged to other tribes at the time of the treaty. The Court viewed Seufert, a case unquestionably involving only the right of access, to be squarely controlled by its earlier decision in Winans. 249 U. S., at 198. Moreover, the Court reaffirmed its view that the effect of the reservation of common fishing rights to the Indians amounted to a servitude. Id., at 199.
Mr. Justice Douglas wrote for the Court:
“The right to fish ‘at all usual and accustomed’ places may, of course, not be qualified by the State. . . . But the manner of fishing, the size of the take, the restriction of commercial fishing, and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians.” 391 U. S., at 398.
In describing the “appropriate standards” referred to, Mr. Justice Douglas continued:
“As to a ‘regulation’ concerning the time and manner of fishing . . . , the power of the State [is] measured by whether [the regulation is] ‘necessary for the conservation of fish.’ [Tulee,] 315 U. S., at 684.
“The measure of the legal propriety of those kinds of conservation measures is therefore distinct from the federal constitutional standard concerning the scope of the police power of a State. See Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726 . . . .” Id., at 402 n. 14.
See also Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S., at 207-208; Tulee, 315 U. S., at 684; Winans, 198 U. S., at 384; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504.
Because the 50% figure is only a ceiling, it is not correct to characterize our holding “as guaranteeing the Indians a specified percentage” of the fish. See POWELL, J., dissenting, post, at 697.
The logic of the 50% ceiling is manifest. For an equal division—especially between parties who presumptively treated with each other as equals—is suggested, if not necessarily dictated, by the word “common” as it appears in the treaties. Since the days of Solomon, such a division has been accepted as a fair apportionment of a common asset, and Anglo-American common law has presumed that division when, as here, no other percentage is suggested by the language of the agreement or the surrounding circumstances. E. g., 2 American Law of Property § 6.5, p. 19 (A. Casner ed. 1952); E. Hopkins, Handbook on the Law of Real Property § 209, p. 336 (1896).
Although there is some discussion in the briefs concerning whether the treaties give Indians the same right to take hatchery-bred fish as they do to take native fish, the District Court has not yet reached a final decision on this issue, see 459 F. Supp., at 1072-1085, and it is not therefore fairly subsumed within our grant of certiorari. See Puyallup III, 433 U. S., at 177 n. 17.
Although the IPSFC has refused to accede to the suggestions of the United States that special regulations be promulgated to cover the Indian fisheries, we are informed by the Solicitor General that the Canadian Government has no objection to those suggestions, has unilaterally implemented similar rules on behalf of its own Indians, and has expressed no dissatisfaction with the unilateral actions taken by the United States in this regard. Brief for United States 40 n. 26.
Because the Department of the Interior regulations assure that no disproportion will occur, the equitable adjustment ordered by the District Court to cover the possibility that IPSFC regulations would result in a disproportionate nontreaty take will not be effectuated. We accordingly have no issue before us concerning the validity of that adjustment.
The associations advance a third objection as well—that the District Court had no power to enjoin individual nontreaty fishermen, who were not parties to its decisions, from violating the allocations that it has ordered. The reason this issue has arisen is that state officials were either unwilling or unable to enforce the District Court‘s orders against nontreaty fishermen by way of state regulations and state law enforcement efforts. Accordingly, nontreaty fishermen were openly violating Indian fishing rights, and, in order to give federal law enforcement officials the power via contempt to end those violations, the District Court was forced to enjoin them. 459 F. Supp., at 1043, 1098-1099, 1113–1117. The commercial fishing organizations, on behalf of their individual members, argue that they should not be bound by these orders because they were not parties to (although the associations all did participate as amici curiae in) the proceedings that led to their issuance.
If all state officials stand by the Attorney General‘s representations that the State will implement the decision of this Court, see nn. 34 and 35, infra, this issue will be rendered moot because the District Court no longer will be forced to enforce its own decisions. Nonetheless, the issue is still live since state implementation efforts are now at a standstill and the orders are still in effect. Accordingly, we must decide it.
In our view, the commercial fishing associations and their members are probably subject to injunction under either the rule that nonparties who interfere with the implementation of court orders establishing public rights may be enjoined, e. g., United States v. Hall, 472 F. 2d 261 (CA5 1972), cited approvingly in Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U. S. 168, 180, or the rule that a court possessed of the res in a proceeding in rem, such as one to apportion a fishery, may enjoin those who would interfere with that custody. See Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U. S. 623, 641. But in any case, these individuals and groups are citizens of the State of Washington, which was a party to the relevant proceedings, and “they, in their common public rights as citizens of the State, were represented by
the State in those proceedings, and, like it, were bound by the judgment.” Tacoma v. Taxpayers, 357 U. S. 320, 340-341. Moreover, a court clearly may order them to obey that judgment. See Golden State Bottling, supra, at 179-180.
The State has also argued that absent congressional legislation the treaties involved here are not enforceable. This argument flies directly in the face of Art. XIII of the treaties which states that they “shall be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as [they are] ratified by the President and Senate of the United States.” Moreover, the argument was implicitly rejected in Winans and our ensuing decisions regarding these treaties, all of which assumed that the treaties are self-enforcing. E. g., Puyallup I, 391 U. S., at 397-398.
Significantly, Congress thrice rejected efforts in the early 1960‘s to terminate the Indians’ fishing rights under these treaties. See S. J. Res. 170 and 171, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); H. J. Res. 48, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963); H. J. Res. 698, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962).
In his brief, the Attorney General represented:
“If this Court now concludes that Indian treaty fishermen and all other fishermen are not members of the same class with respect to an allocation of fishery, it will thereby lay the foundation for the validity under state law of a separate classification of treaty Indian fishermen for the purpose of allocation. We would respectfully submit that if the Court rejects our earlier argument and finds that treaty Indian fishermen are a special class for allocation purposes, such a conclusion would remove the impediment found by the Washington Supreme Court to the exercise of necessary regulatory power by the Department of Fisheries to allocate between Indian and non-Indian fishermen.
“Fisheries will be able to comply with the Court‘s decision in this
case even if it requires some type of allocation of the fishery.” Brief for State of Washington 99.
See also Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 86 Wash. 2d 664, 681, 684-688, 548 P. 2d 1058, 1070, 1072-1074 (1976), in which the Washington Supreme Court held that the Department of Game had authority to allocate a certain portion of the steelhead trout run on the Puyallup River to treaty fishermen.
According to the Attorney General:
“The State of Washington and its Department of Fisheries cannot emphasize too strongly that they do not propose to inhibit the enforcement of proper federal court orders. . . .
“Whatever the decision of this Court, the state will implement it. The state believes that after a decision by this Court it will be in a position to comply with District Court orders, if the same are necessary to comply with this Court‘s decision. We do not believe the state courts could or would take a different point of view: We are confident that they will accede to this Court‘s interpretation of the treaties in the future just as they have in the past, as this Court expressly found in Puyallup III, [433 U. S.,] at 177.” Brief for State of Washington 95, 96.
We note the omission of the same firm representation on behalf of the Game Department. Although the history of that agency is not nearly as favorable as that of Fisheries with respect to attempting to comply with the District Court‘s order, e. g., 384 F. Supp., at 395, 398; 459 F. Supp., at 1043, 1045, 1099, we assume that this omission stems from the fact that only Fisheries was named as a party in the litigation in the state courts regarding the state agencies’ authority to comply with the District Court‘s order. See 88 Wash. 2d, at 679, 565 P. 2d, at 1152. See also Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, discussed in n. 34, supra.