Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Washingtonx, No. 20-35346 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Snoqualmie Indian Tribe and the Samish Indian Nation have been disputing the Treaty of Point Elliott for decades. The Snoqualmie sought a declaration that it is a signatory to the Treaty and that its reserved off-reservation hunting and gathering rights under the Treaty continue. Prior litigation has involved fishing rights. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit on issue preclusion grounds. Prior appeals, 40 years ago, resolved that the Snoqualmie is not a treaty tribe under the Treaty. Treaty-tribe status is established when a group of Indians is “descended from a treaty signatory” and has “maintained an organized tribal structure.” The Snoqualmie Tribe, though descended from a treaty-signatory tribe, has not maintained an organized tribal structure and is not entitled to exercise rights under the Treaty because it lacks treaty-tribe status.
Court Description: Indian Treaty Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, on the ground of issue preclusion, of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe’s complaint seeking a declaration that it is a signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott and that its reserved off-reservation hunting and gathering rights under the Treaty continue. The panel held that it was within the district court’s discretion to dismiss on the ground of issue preclusion without first establishing subject matter jurisdiction because the dismissal was a non-merits dismissal, and it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that dismissal on the ground of issue preclusion was the less burdensome course. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the determination in United States v. Washington (“Washington II”), 476 F. Supp. 1101 (W.D. Wash. 1979), aff’d, 641 F.2d * The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 4 SNOQUALMIE INDIAN TRIBE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON 1368 (9th Cir. 1981), that the Snoqualmie has no fishing rights under the Treaty precluded a finding that the Tribe has any hunting and gathering rights under the same Treaty. The panel concluded that in Washington II, the Snoqualmie actually litigated the identical issue of treaty-tribe status. Further, United States v. Washington (“Washington IV”), 593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), did not create an exception to issue preclusion, and no other exception applied.
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.