Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Tulalip Tribes, No. 18-35441 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a subproceeding brought by the Muckleshoot seeking to expand their usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (U&As) to certain areas of Puget Sound beyond Elliott Bay.
The panel held that the district court did not err in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain this subproceeding. In this case, the district court properly held that Muckleshoot's saltwater U&As in Puget Sound had already been "specifically determined" in their entirety by Judge Boldt in Final Decision #1, and accordingly, there was no continuing jurisdiction under Paragraph 25(a)(6) to entertain the present subproceeding.
Court Description: Tribal Matters / Fishing Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction of a subproceeding brought by Muckleshoot Indian Tribe concerning usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U&As”) in western Washington established under the “Stevens Treaties.” In United States v. Washington (Final Decision #1), 384 F. Supp. 312, 330 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff’d and remanded, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), Judge Boldt made detailed findings of facts and conclusions of law defining the U&As, and issued a permanent injunction that retained jurisdiction in implementing the decision’s decree. * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE V. TULALIP TRIBES 3 In Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359–60 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Muckleshoot 1”), the Court held that where a tribe’s U&As have been “specifically determined” in Final Decision #1, continuing jurisdiction under the permanent injunction resides only in Paragraph 25(a)(1). In Subproceeding 97-1, this Court affirmed District Judge Rothstein’s holding that the Muckleshoot’s saltwater U&As were limited to Elliot Bay. United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429, 438 (9th Cir. 2000). In Subproceeding 17-2 at issue in this case, the Muckleshoot sought under Paragraph 25(a)(6) to expand their U&As to certain areas of Puget Sound beyond Elliot Bay. The panel noted that in order for a tribe to bring an action under Paragraph 25(a)(6), the U&A at issue must have not been “specifically determined” by Final Decision #1. As a threshold issue, the panel held that the district court properly held that Muckleshoot’s saltwater U&As in Puget Sound had already been “specifically determined” in their entirety by Judge Boldt, and accordingly, there was no continuing jurisdiction under Paragraph 25(a)(6) to entertain the present subproceeding. The panel did not reach the other issues raised on appeal. Dissenting, Judge Ikuta stated that the majority’s opinion frustrated Judge Boldt’s rulings in Final Decision #1 that his specific determinations were not comprehensive, and that tribes could invoke the court’s continuing jurisdiction to determine additional U&A fishing locations. 4 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE V. TULALIP TRIBES
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.