Tulalip Tribes v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

• Citation: 794 F.3d 1129
• Decision Date: 27 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 13–35773.,13–35773.
• Parties: TULALIP TRIBES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, Defendant–Appellee, and United States of America; Swinomish Tribal Community; Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; Lower Elwha Band of Klallams; Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Skokomish Indian Tribe ; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; Lummi Nation; Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington State; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife ; Quinault Indian Nation; Stillaguamish Tribe ; Puyallup Tribe; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Quileute Indian Tribe, Real-parties-in-interest.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

794 F.3d 1129

TULALIP TRIBES, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, Defendant–AppelleeandUnited States of America; Swinomish Tribal Community; Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; Lower Elwha Band of Klallams; Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Skokomish Indian Tribe ; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; Lummi Nation; Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington State; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife ; Quinault Indian Nation; Stillaguamish Tribe ; Puyallup Tribe; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Quileute Indian Tribe, Real-parties-in-interest.

No. 13–35773.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2014.

Filed July 27, 2015.

Mason D. Morisset (argued) and Rebecca JCH Jackson, Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Howard G. Arnett (argued), Karnopp Peterson, Bend, OR; James Rittenhouse Bellis and Michelle Hansen, Office of the Reservation Attorney, Suquamish, WA, for Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 2:05–sp–00004–RSM, 2:70–cv–09213–RSM.

Before: RICHARD A. PAEZ, JAY S. BYBEE, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

In this treaty fishing rights case, the Tulalip Tribes (“the Tulalip”) invoked the district court's continuing jurisdiction as provided by the permanent injunction in United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 419 (W.D.Wash.1974) (Decision I ), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1975), by filing a request for determination of the scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe's (“the Suquamish”) usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U & A”). The Tulalip sought a determination that the Suquamish's U & A, as determined by Judge Boldt in 1975, does not include Possession Sound, Port Gardner Bay, the mouth of the Snohomish River, and the bays on the west side of Whidbey Island (Admiralty Bay, Mutiny Bay, Useless Bay, and Cultus Bay). Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did not intend to exclude the contested areas from the Suquamish's U & A and entered judgment accordingly. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.

I. Background

There is a lengthy background to the complex litigation over the treaty fishing rights of the Indian tribes in Western Washington. The historical background of the treaty negotiations is detailed in Judge Boldt's Decision I. We will not repeat that background, although we do note several key facts to give context to the issues we address here. Although Judge Boldt's rulings resolved many key issues over the extent of the Indian tribes' treaty fishing rights, there have been a number of post-judgment subproceedings seeking clarification of Judge Boldt's rulings. This case is one such subproceeding.

In 1854 and 1855, several Indian tribes entered into treaties with Isaac Stevens, Washington Territorial Governor, on behalf of the United States. Decision I, 384 F.Supp. at 330. One of these treaties was the Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927 (signed January 22, 1855; ratified March 8, 1859; proclaimed April 11, 1859) (“the Treaty”), which is the treaty at issue here. Decision I, 384 F.Supp. at 355. Through these treaties, the United States “acquire[d] vast Indian lands.” Id. at 330. As part of the negotiations, the tribes reserved the right to fish at “all usual and accustomed grounds and stations,” including those off reservation. Id. at 332.

In 1970, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington, among others, on behalf of several Western Washington Indian tribes, later joined by other tribes as intervenor plaintiffs. Id. at 327. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment regarding the tribes' reserved treaty fishing rights and an injunction to enforce those rights. Id. at 327–28. In Decision I, Judge Boldt held that tribes that were parties to the Treaty, or “Treaty Tribes,” had a “right to take anadromous fish outside of reservation boundaries ... limited ... by geographical extent of the usual and accustomed places.” Id. at 407. Judge Boldt also defined the Treaty Tribes' U & As throughout his ruling, and in later decisions.¹

Judge Boldt took great care to define Treaty Tribes' U & As. According to Judge Boldt, the words “[u]sual and accustomed ... indicate the exclusion of unfamiliar locations and those used infrequently or at long intervals and extraordinary occasions.” Id. at 332. He defined a U & A as “every fishing location where members of a tribe customarily fished from time to time at and before treaty times, however distant from the then usual habitat of the tribe, and whether or not other tribes then also fished in the same waters.” Id. Conversely, “occasional and incidental trolling” while traveling through thoroughfares does not constitute a U & A. Id. at 353. Judge Boldt's findings “set forth ... some, but by no means all, of [the plaintiff tribes'] principal usual and accustomed fishing places.” Id. at 333. After all, “[a]lthough there are extensive records and oral history from which many specific fishing locations can be pinpointed, it would be impossible to compile a complete inventory of any tribe's” U & As. Id. at 353.

In determining the tribes' U & As, Judge Boldt found anthropological reports prepared by Dr. Barbara Lane, an expert witness, to be “highly credible” and “very helpful in determining by direct evidence or reasonable inferences the probable location and extent of” U & As. United States v. Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1059 (W.D.Wash.1978) (Decision II ); see also Decision I, 384 F.Supp. at 350 (finding that Dr. Lane's reports “have been exceptionally well researched and reported and are established by a preponderance of the evidence”).

Neither party to this subproceeding was a party to this litigation when Judge Boldt issued Decision I ; both intervened afterwards. Decision II, 459 F.Supp. at 1028. Appellant, the Tulalip, is a political successor in interest to various groups of Indians that were parties to the Treaty. Id. at 1039. Appellee, the Suquamish, was an original party to the Treaty. Id. at 1040. Because neither tribe was a party to the Decision I proceedings, Judge Boldt determined their respective U & As in orders issued after his original order recognizing off-reservation fishing rights. The court held that the Suquamish had a right to fish at U & As outside of reservation boundaries. Id. at 1041. Later, the court declared that the Suquamish's U & A includes “the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River including Haro and Rosario Straits, the streams draining into the western side of this portion of Puget Sound and also Hood Canal.”Id. at 1049.

In June 2005, in a separate subproceeding, the Upper Skagit Tribe filed a Request for Determination that Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay are not within the Suquamish's U & A. We affirmed the district court's judgment that neither Saratoga Passage nor Skagit Bay lie within the Suquamish's U & A. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.2010).

Here, the Tulalip requested a determination that the inland marine waters east of Admiralty Inlet but west of Whidbey Island (Admiralty Bay, Mutiny Bay, Useless Bay, and Cultus Bay), as well as Saratoga Passage, Penn Cove, Holmes Harbor, Possession Sound, Port Susan, Tulalip Bay, and Port Gardner, do not lie within the Suquamish's U & A.

The Tulalip filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to declare that the Suquamish's U & A is “limited to the west side of Puget Sound,” and that “the Suquamish tribe does not have adjudicated usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations in the marine waters of Saratoga Pass[age], Holmes Harbor, Port Susan, Possession Sound, or Port Gardner, and on the west side of Whidbey Island, including Useless Bay, Mutiny Bay, and Admiralty Bay.”² The district court granted the motion as to Skagit Bay, Saratoga Passage, Penn Cove, Holmes Harbor, and Port Susan, following our opinion in the Upper Skagit subproceeding. The court, however, denied the motion as to Possession Sound, Port Gardner Bay, and the bays on the west side of Whidbey Island, specifically Admiralty Bay, Mutiny Bay, Useless Bay, and Cultus Bay, and declared that the Suquamish U & A included these waters. Upon making these determinations, which resolved all disputed issues, the court entered a final judgment.

The Tulalip timely appealed. The Tulalip's challenge before us, however, is limited to the district court's ruling that, in determining the Suquamish's U & A, Judge Boldt did not intend to exclude the mouth of the Snohomish River, Possession Sound, Port Gardner Bay, and the bays on the west side of Whidbey Island (Admiralty Bay, Mutiny Bay, Useless Bay, and Cultus Bay).

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429, 432 n. 1 (9th Cir.2000) (Muckleshoot III )³ (citing Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521–22, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) for the proposition that jurisdiction under § 1291 is proper when the district court's judgment in a subproceeding is final as to all disputed issues).

Our review is de novo, as the Tulalip appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment. Muckleshoot v. Lummi, 141 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir.1998) (Muckleshoot I ); Muckleshoot III, 235 F.3d at 432 (reviewing de novo a determination on summary judgment regarding Judge Boldt's finding of the Muckleshoot Tribe's U & A).

III. The Suquamish's U & A

In Upper Skagit, we drew on our prior decisions interpreting Judge Boldt's U & A findings for various tribes to develop a two-step mode of analysis. First, the moving party bears the burden of offering evidence that a U & A finding was “ambiguous, or that Judge Boldt intended something other than [the text's] apparent meaning.” Upper Skagit, 590...