Tag Archives: United States v. Washington
Here (aka United States v. Washington subproceeding 14-2): Nisqually Opening Brief Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe. Briefs are here.
Here is the opinion in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe. An excerpt: In this treaty fishing rights case, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (“the Upper Skagit”) filed a Request for Determination as to the geographic scope of the Suquamish … Continue reading →
Here: Seattle Human Rights Commission Culvert_OpEd An excerpt: The Seattle Human Rights Commission writes in response to the Seattle Times recent editorial “The Supreme Court must clarify culvert ruling,” and seeks to correct inaccuracies regarding tribal treaty rights and the State’s obligation … Continue reading →
Ninth Circuit Materials in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (U.S. v. Washington subproceeding 14-1)
Here: S’Klallam Tribes Brief Suquamish Reply Tulalip Tribes Brief Upper Skagit Brief Oral argument video here.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 09-1 — second go around, I think?)
Here: Four Tribes’ Brief Hoh Tribe Brief Makah Brief Makah Reply Quinault and Quileute Brief Six Tribes’ Brief State Brief State Reply Oral argument video here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington subproceeding 17-1 (Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation) (W.D. Wash.): 1-1 Skokomish Request for Determination 21 S’Klallam Tribes Motion to Dismiss 23 Squaxin Island Motion … Continue reading →
Michael Blumm has published “Indian Treaty Fishing Rights and the Environment: Affirming the Right to Habitat Protection and Restoration” in the Washington Law Review.
Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Forsman (W.D. Wash.): 15 Motion to Dismiss 19 Response 20-2 Sklallam Amicus Brief 22 Reply 34 DCT Order
Here. All aspects of the substantive holding are retained. This new order adds analysis on a couple of issues (recoupment and the State’s futility argument). No word yet on the court’s response to the request for rehearing en banc. View … Continue reading →