# Opposition Brief — Washington v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386018_1050%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 526 U.S. 1060

## Text

IN THI
Supreme Court of the United States
{
Ninth Cy

RESPONDENT INDIAN TRIBES’
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION _

T 7 TT> T 7 4
i | - Ff '
Aik is N

LS IASON DD. MORI
HARRY JOHNSE? MORISSET, SCHLO
OFFICE OF THI

LYER & JOZWIAK
-ESERVATION A] rney for the Tula
{fforneys for the | |

;
11S Norton Build!
d77iTFii Indian [ f

| Second Avenu
03 “E” Street ttle, WA 981
() Box 5746 ) 6 ((
iwnan

DNA () GAK
IN ARUM V OFFICE O}
RK SLONIM LILUP TRIB
[Z, CHES]
HLL. BERI i
for the M \
Rn +}

LIHRYN NEI

\()! |
VELOUN PERE Y JON BOD!
.' TSA f \ I> 7
I NHOWER & CARI SON Pp ney for the N

"IS West Holly Street. #G
WAG and Ja P.O. Box 6092
\ A // PPI ', Pal

INGE IS dla bal] \
Bellingham, WA Ys

460) I 44-4919

WO Wells Fargo P LAROLD CHESNIN

yma. WA 9X4 IALTHE WS. GARLING

1 ‘7 4
} t’Y7
t | i |)
”
] ea
;
( ) SOX LY
lam
is
) UA
1] > ri
HARI) R i(
( R, . ey! f
j
dl ?
) }
Ib ./) 5i)\ ‘
\ ;
1al
>
»(;, MA )

rABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF THE CAS
Factual Background
Course of Proceedings
ASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITIO
[he Court of Appeals Created No Conflu

to Graft Species Ol lec hnology tase d

i:xpress Treaty Language

[qual Sharing of The Fish Resour
Decided” and No Conflict Exist:

it ls a “Matter Decided” that the Ste:
Provide a Right of Access to Private Prop

Override the Presumption of the Equ:

i

. |
cctrine, and No Conflict |

an +h i | ,fuy
Ww? CQUual FOOUN
(‘ourt of Appeals Created
rpretation of the Shellfish Pri

the Court of Appeals Correctly R

;

Proviso Meaning De N:
} I

iCal EITO!

[he Proviso Meaning 1s a |

\ ] } . : slau | .

¥," nicn the Courts Be liOw Ver l
(‘ase Presents No Opportu!

Settled Law Regarding Laches

ae FF

iii iia iii iii

Kk OF AUTHORITII

bE DERAL CASES

STATUTES, TREATIES AND RULI

INTRODUCTION

[he four petitions for certiorari present ten questions,
none of which implicates a conflict in authority among the
Courts of Appeals or with a State Supreme Court. A number
Of questions rest On incorrect premises, and a number would
require this Court to engage in the heavily factbound
examination of the record already conducted by the courts
below. In all instances, petitioners press arguments. that
mark a clear departure from the plain treaty language and
this Court’s precedents. The petitions should be denied

(he courts below held that. in entering into five nearly
identical treaties with the tribes of western Washington (the
Stevens treaties), the United States made a promise that the
tribes would enjoy a permanent, meaningful right to take
shellfish from natural shellfish beds and that this promise
should be honored today. Under the treaties, (1) “The right
of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and
stations, 1s further secured to said Indians, in common with
all citizens,” (the fishing right); (2) “Provided, however, That
they shall not take shell fish from any beds staked or
cultivated by citizens” (the shellfish proviso). Treaty of
Medicine Creek, Art. III, 10 Stat. 1132, 1133 (1854)

(he majority of petitioners’ questions concern the scope
of the fishing right. Certiorari on those questions is
unwarranted because in seven previous decisions this Court
already has explored the meaning of that right and the courts
below fully adhered to those decisions. There is no conflict
with any other court.

[his Court has not considered the shellfish proviso
previously, but review of its meaning is unwarranted for two
reasons: first, because there exist no other treaties containing
language about shellfish beds, and the interpretation of the
proviso therefore does not implicate any broader concerns:
and, second, because the courts below reached thei!
conclusion as to its meaning based on a careful, factbhound
examination of the type that this Court typically will not
revisit. Petitioners also complain about the standard of
review utilized by the Court of Appeals in addressing the
proviso’s meaning, but their claims of conflict or error on
this point do not withstand scrutiny

?

' 1
Lit \ Giill Ula@lliicd )
+ ] , ‘ , ? }
DeIOW 1S demonstrabd
nak. = nt { the tr
YLIGUVUILY Lhivl Y Ali it Lili Ll
th , sirt , Ane | CIC r
iC \L OUTIL O ADI lin UCUISIVUI
I
"~179 * _* thy: f ' an | cae)
Opinio i Lil \ i cali
+} +1 ] . , +}

. =
STATEMENT OF THI
ual Background
1 — 7 19 ‘
’ } . by , ) ; 7 ’
4a ws as i) : . 7
7 } ' lang chell 1
al it Siit A
, . ' MIT ' ‘1 ex
l bhi) } iVivid purposes
T} mn mnteacteand
i hb sh1U4 iCsiCu
a record qaemonstrale
a IT c rm
S i LiVSUUILEUS DY
T) 7 + 4 1
} x } i
~ 4 A 4 1 a v¥
" +, . _ : witin
a wo iw] bik —\ Lili
‘ 1A + 1a . hellfich
: “? eae LS iL i i »S
‘ treat th trihec eT
— .. ‘ _ 4 ‘ > re
LD SR A | +L, .
mys . } ry
CK 4 py ine same §S
| i} WUT CS. I
. a 1 ‘ ees :
{ OO k ) (
; ; oO . f |
2 LO! lengths Of Kelly
‘ . | | . } LT ‘> rT) TY IT
7 ) 7 "Dp
? ‘ » rm x fy>\\/
Sc K : y STK )
_—
‘ ° j ‘ Sm 6&4 i
\ (f ‘ )

~
.
c} tor
*% A
ryr
ADD
YT } 7
ait ar
inn
' y' 4
Tins Trinny
‘ tii )
1? .% >
itn ove
bUS USK
TT) 1 >
ER |!
Vereter
is amv
Te ht srt
Va WWUItCII
‘ |
OOK
sarmtitsis
Udi .
\ Tr) ’
1PeENn WU
7 oS | vy

nerc
LIU 1
Di T |
LSlal
mttaer
Lilt i
: Tear
IStCll
re
\ hi
}
HY
,
IOV IC
Cnr
=.) 6) G«
{
}
, » ;
my
_
iii v
. {
i.”
{
tor
}

;
i

} 446),
San

ashi

}
A)

~
~

?
A

y oysters

) er fish specie
shellfish subproceeding began in 198% ER 9. B
motion. the district court held that under the pl.

‘ave of the treaties, and the “elementary canon

truction that a statute should be interpreted so as not

r one part ‘noperative.” Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S
59? (1979), the right of taking fish” includes the rig}
ike shellfish App. 56 [The court then held a
‘k bench trial, after which it issued

tribes’ rights of taking shellfish a1

ion holding that the

heir rights to other fish, except to

Ktensive with t
t limited by the shellfish proviso. App. 52-53 lr]
+ concluded. based on evidence it consider
selling.” App. 55, 59, and “overwhelming[]” App
proviso limits tribes from taking shellfish onl) I
‘tificial shellfish beds created by citizens wh
ed t! il \ CICS CAISto App 77
dist court then issued two ordet n
mitations on tribal shellfishing in order to |
ests of private landowners. The cour held that
nav harvest shellfish from private tidelands — eve!
stence purposes — only five days a year (with
on Jarger lots). and only after providing landow!
1e-montl notice and conducting (at thet
. scientific surveys establishing the presence
hellfish population App. 126-2 The cour
tribal access acro yrivately owned uplan
ng area tInbal membd
boat, public
yp +( \ll parties appeaiec
rT ’ > hud

App } Final he |

that the tribes are permitted a shal
lfish that would be present naturally on U
vers’ beds absent the grower fforts; th
tled to the entire fruits of their labor and 1
r tidelands App 33-35 [he court t! mda
ial determination of what portion ol
xempt from tribal harvest because
wers efforts la The district t

ied 1 ies to Mot! LIVE OT |

REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITIO!
[he Court of Appeals Created No Conflict by
Refusing to Graft Species or Technology-Bas
Limitations Onto Express Treaty Languag:

| Té rT
al I l i
‘ T b ’
;
a I
17
ii 4
) ’ ’ j
a i
Li
+ +) +,
)
1 ' )
+! ’ ‘
» 7
’
|
} {

_ ' ‘ ‘
+ vy tat ' thy trmh “Wr
in La On) i UX \ eas ~

raises 1S not worthy of certiorari rhe 0

ing is grounded in the plain language OI U
all deference to the State, there

‘ tr :
. of any species-specific or technok
. , +44
on the Imbes mgnts App. 16. Whil
t} ( unt of Anne ] i ‘ ‘ +} ‘
i { OUTL O AAT pedal LidiCl {) | irc
; f) ‘ | ] j
Ti] wif th i j
I CONLILICt Vitti Uli ( u CU
‘ ‘
pits j S/g PS st | \ Od
r ma with Variou
, ? *
(J I) ‘I | DO
+ ‘ ‘ | |
n YaKama ifrlo0
‘ )
C s ( olumbDla F
j ‘ ] t ‘
{S] ine Y aKdl LT
. 1 , '
} , } va } sf } ; ‘ ‘
| | s AGA; | I
| ‘ ; ‘ 9 1
a ‘ K ATTICS } }
| | | remark
Cll ‘
‘ | , ht ta th
} } ‘ " ‘ ’
}

Reso

¢
~

qi Sharing of The Fish
yecided” and No Conflict Exists.

irce Is a “Matt

~ f ,1TY tinat tir . rt is y ‘ ,
1 Vidill iia Liv 4 i
+1 | >
try? y rT tastalee , ' : "
aTC PICSUITTIPUVEeLy Viatates Al ~UUd
, 1 07 1
’ } >T water , ity , wr r
sVil aeep VV ALY! SLINDLLIOL iii
t enenden ' t sf ‘ that 1
I aepe ndenct Ol inat TeSOu};s ila
‘ . sanit ile Tile tint Vtaty, p ; T} \ 1
| guitadie alOcadtit LALC | if
; } 1,3 ,
t} ¢ th t t sort uf t lt choniiad have ca
i qgistrict COUTL TMstcadt snould navy Caicu
, ‘ ' ‘
trv\r jloenen , th, treat C . a) . t} nr
l gepenaence O11 tic tribes on eacn Ol .
id f chell fic] t f
e 1,/ rent rs 12 rellfich (in ‘
nul wl aiftteren Spce Ls Vil sneiirisn { Tt Lat
] } | } .
I al iT ica - ' ‘ rate th, rir
DI C hat the court i nave Vaiuated tn
1
; . ipery eT hamrecting ; } ; t
I Ul ul wale Hal VUSUII Ul Udall Ul
, : +1 .
‘ ryt
) iT ‘ ’ y ion a D 1¢ ny pe 1¢ } it) al )
DI Ty 1 ta tual! tanv ivall rt { on an ll
> '
>
7 1 t4 ‘ mor) >? my\ ( rt ’ ) tT? ril
| r | D tf irk t >W by t++% 4447) pote-ey} . ’
! } tm ' i bh , e the tnh
s | 4 | '* ;
‘ . ; ’ ; " ; * oy > " P ‘ , ; ;
iVid j i 7's | Wu. \ Ll
ey nar ) Tr ryre mimMmMrnyrive fart
‘ A a , i , . Abhig/LA YS
Tr}
, 7 » j on
_— cr c
4 ) - —_— -
( = ~ is —
——p e) a - ~
“ . j ~
a > —

f
- a ws ~
> f
D ¢ f 5 .
r

f

- c ~ ~
. f

~ 4 Jf
val ond
- a
" r

- =
=o
~~ ) = =~

Cd ar e.- — i Sie es er,
+ ~ 1. es Ch a” GS J ~~ 4 pa —_— —
= _—-4 a = a ml f am me 4 watt — —_—_ +
= i pb “ a 5 ta = SS L - 5) ond [S .= ;
— ©) °C on be S aa OO —~ A= oS ) — » ~ - 2
~ +~ - =—= we : oo . oO ow :— x _ a on * o Jt 2») +
; , a a fe De'=UW> Y of D-- — ~~ et .7; — + ‘ >
A. 2 : See “Oe N 3 uA — ce = ae, On
On VS wow &- dD PS ar ther LD Yee OO WD ._ am
‘oe a , = — + om, -_ —~ ~_ > > wa 1 a .
Qs co 2 _S> SD ans O —~oe SS we = “a a et Py VW. SBP Ae
- a Set ae a es = = — o . » -—a No = CO “ - ion
2: © — € = 2 = _ D = ee ke ee oe = > 2
’ > - ~~ . a mn = - oud —_ j ¥ ~~ be a 2 2 bm ‘D) - te \) A — Ie ho ss
a os ¢ cc ae a ae , ~~ > ~ Oe nN & = a © 3 L nt. - -
-_~ ~ o a ~— opt , ~~ fr) ~~ ~~ =
os) VU oO = co “oe am VY =o e Sie VY ae > et he ~~ = =
ee DYE OO RC DT E 1) ee eo a. ~ Dy -eeeY 4 i
ont ae > Hm. “ > — met ot -— -s* Sf we FG DvD ~_ ~. ae
oo “ ) sles P ) : ’
- ~ Se iwm UY & J 3 om aa D 4 ) , ~ -&
> = + ~ [_ «= ~ >
, Jr « ~~ — A an ast oo a a - @
— i. — ~~ O——_— ‘el; cc on 4 — ~ ~_ ~ 4? ong oom _ C - “ - >; ~ - —
~- a a Oe oe oF a om A oun ~} D «A - ¢ -
a |
~~ @ ¢€ = , om wo =. m o @ A A ~ = oo a ~ © —~ Oo :
Mem ra" . cc \) 7) oe oe ‘ie ~ om ~ or od
~ ~ quit — - "ies -— Cas - en = a T'S —_— ) ae >
» - fF mm — - & 2 a ~ — - — _ —~ 5, — od a oo wi} . ~~ ~ a 3
+ a = — 2 ~ ae — = = & oD. : - > as
7 SH a | ~ 1 - = ee a oP | Ae LD oe =a, ~ es fy Bie, Bata “ “gl _ 3 4 Ga Hh CW. oe = ~ a ey
—_ — om ) - ~ -- —t _ gud - x ~ co sf
= =a OOO SSS ma = ws ae — ws Y = a> ca a 2 = «
~ a 2 A a -—— ~ = f . r — 2 ear ~ a ~~ oo ae
ow S&S De& QoO= = Se —_=a Dee & A ~ ea NY 3s FU Ss
2 - aod = Co —- -~ ha e ¢ ) St) » co nd > St) =~ om f 8 _ > oad ~~ = 3
) )— "5 on dia 3 ke 3 ca a ae > = “DD ; a “ = 6 .3. fw
. — @ SS ae me coal a3 4 3 Y n) Fr ow J nN sr * — = a ET
= “ee a | - 2 =a @ Be @ er ont PE San) ans 2 = — ny ~ — =~ — —
ag _ "" i ~ ca ~—. » —— —
f ~ f fr i — cn P— ~/ » — 3) — A
" f 7 J J ’ c — ‘ f — : Pi - A> — ¢ , _"
) — = A) 4) WH = — ~ a a a a eS Ic we iy. es +
~~ 3 2, oo - ~~ — ~ $q@ VS f ~ a a Om + ~~ wm <> 7
= oe —_— ae > oe eT) —_ co “3 ) - a ‘o_ a Sw -) - — — oust ~ _
— — TF - a HCO — ~~ a Oe - ae Cc - eo ° C _ ~ D a ‘ .
at od ~— 4 ‘ ~ ~- > DD — ont pa rome) —_ ot , hom ~ > my
Se KK >; > _ “ ~ ~ S _~ 4 — «A x = ~ ~ _ —_
) - 2 ~ = - a a = - - P, 4 'y; - ie — > 2 = 3 ™ & ¢ sid
@ > a SS } an oS f. Mm Cc = ad ) . $6400 A am t > +
—_ i >_> . ‘> -_ o ond - —¢ — — — r re = = of = A ~ ~ —For ERO eet oe Ss
. ae a ee > « = — - / — a> b
- AD = 5 aa ~ , out i, — rT s - } ~ _ co - = ~ P
4 > - — 4 , c = ns
~ + $ A) r “ -_
) : t £ ~

5
‘
,

ound

I

1998)

|

Doctrine

mak r . lx ~ wo m tha . |
gulation of the mght. It only fixes in the land

on | th ht to | ' ae
SeMe! ts as enab es 1e ry tO De CExerClISecad

S. at 384 Ever since Winans, the federal
ano . Tne er 1 ' | >it } held r)
iding in the decisions ultimately upheld in ,

\ } ]

sel, see 384 F. Supp. at 401) have consistently held

Footing Doctrine not to affect the scope of the tr
ling rights. and state court decisions relying
trine to that end have consistently been reversed

ry ee oj 1NO P Id PRN (VY lL 10A1
Washington \ Tulee, 109 P.2d 280 (Wash MG

U.S. 681 (1942)

Petitioners pve: suggest that Winans 1
suse this case involves shellfish rather than salmon. B

y do not aes that the nght of taking shellfish is part
broader right of taking fish, and Winans’ holding that tl
nited States overrode the equal footing presumption so tha

2 tribes could exercise their fishing rights 1s therefore
quarely applicable. Winans admits of no sypescriane: in tl

ard between different types of fisheries, and the facts
t either. As the district court found (and as petitione
vn experts testified), the taking of salmon include
tensive use of tidelands for “beach _ seines, tid
poundment traps, stake nets and reef nets.”” App. 83

7 “70

384 F. Supp. at 352, 360-61, 370, 378. Indeed, as
aties expressly provide, the fishing right even includes tl

to “erect[] temporary houses for the purpose of curins
io]

[hese aspects of salmon fishing affect use of tidelan

H+ ¢

ways similar to the taking of shellfish, particular!
stringent limitations imposed bel n 1
hing on private tidelands.~” Thi
petitioners are argu
Winans holding because the proviso makes th
rary, they are forced to ignore the findings of the courts below

United States intended to guarantee to the tribes, and
ey were reserving, a permanent right of access to tl
tural shellfish beds, App. 27-28, 69-70, and that the provi

ludes the tribes from harvesting shellfish from artificial beds creat
78. For the same reason the asserted rule

ettlers. App. 26,
Ra Horse. 163 U.S. 504 (1896) and (Crow Trib

> ie la"
P. ( ‘ yy ) th Tt eT t !
\ | } ilid Lil sud

lhe Court of Appeals Created No Conflict in It

Interpretation of the Shellfish Proviso.
The Court of Appeals Correctly Reviewed

Proviso Meaning De Novo and Subsidiary fF:
for Clear Error.

+] 4 { A mne iA
argue tnal ne LOU yy ._ppeal 11d
the 1 t t rt nel r) ‘eoardin
ii Al SLTICL COUT >» LVLIN iuUSIONS revaldall
tr ‘ 1] + L, + va } t} . +}
or wu real shellfishing proviso and tnadl
1 error brou it into conflict with the decisions

—

‘its and of this Court. The Court of Appeal

xpressly stated that it was conducting de no\
App. 16, and its opinion bears that statement
urt’s conclusion was “that the district court’s reasot
of the Proviso is correct,’ App. 26 (emphas
d). not just that the analysis was not clearly erroneou
xplaining its ‘'ecision, moreover, the court emphasized

ral points, reasoning that petitioners’ interpretations
re “totally inconsistent” with the repeat
ises made by the United States’ negotiators to preser
tribes’ access to their fisheries, App. 27, and that
ners’ expansive reading of the proviso is flatly at odd
the “black-letter canon[]” that textual provisos are to

} o > tr) v; ‘ ny nic y
y construed. App. 28. .nalysis of this sort }
| ae |
T ' th nren
‘ [ I A and Liit J j i
.
,

\/ T 7 ,
py 1¢ I I
} / + : all
ya I ( N anil O I (
f . +} ] sirt rn tr
i | no fat eren T T lI I
th r 1 af b -

Petitioners attack the Court

it should ‘“‘review for clear error all of the district cour
findings of historical fact, including its findings regardu
the treaty negotiators’ intentions, [and that it would} th
review de novo whether the district court reached the prop
onclusion as to the meaning of the Shellfish Proviso gi\
those findings.” App. 16. However, none of the decisiot
ited by petitioners contains any statement at odds with
lescription of the proper standard of review — indeed
one even discusses the standard of review appropriate
onsidering a district court’s subsidiary “finding
historical fact.” There simply is no conflict betwee
ourt of Appeals’ statement of law on this point al
found in any other cited decision

Nor is there any error in the Court of Appea!
Petitioners mistakenly assume that whenever an app
urt reviews a legal conclusion de novo, it should
view de novo all component parts of t
incorrect. This Court has repeatedly noted that
al court conclusion is appropriately classified
iw, an appellate court should review for
ubsidiary findings of historical fact

In Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 69
PmMmnanaci vara.
| Pe) Cleary erroneous (\empnasls aUuuaUc
} nm: J —-) 3 424 ¥ ~ “AA 1
” + , " "Waki h | | i bd
rougen v. Alageway, 26 F.2d 132, 135 (CA4 1934
' YT ot | nIectinn } t nte rmretatin
VL adi avludl que LLOT] IiVO il ne | ALWV i} Clali
| | 1
‘ ‘ | —= th + r , t t |
Ceci tO Wwhicn tn no Cally mroneous ld j
) ¢ nt nt ) , mir
] \ Jar li I ( te,
) |
,
) MacNamar Korean A ; Q i
|
OO Li yt [™ volved appeais from mot
I process where tn vere no factudl 1 1€ itl
. > } AA I > 4
rma? f ] 1 Ve rkaml[ \ { rf. te | 1634 f ;
' 1 -}
WI the courts OI appea n
,
f+ |
( ne treat negotiatin rd t
yeen any dispute as to the contents of those record
+ + + ¢ Il tat 1A
| a UCal just like a Statul VOuUIC no la [
\ % f ¢ ‘
n Where there is a factua ont rsy a
») mains he mp Tictr . t
ule remains the same: we iT] ]

+

factual determination subdj¢é to re

dence is conflicting.””); Washington Hosp. \ White, 3%
EF 2d 1294 (CA3 1989) (same); North Cent Airlines, Inc
Continental Oil Co., 574 F.2d 582, 586-87 (CADC 197

ame). The Ninth Circuit decision honored that rule here

.d there is no conflict on which to base a grant of certioral

The Growers complain that deferring to ubsidiar

a indings puts an appellate court In the position

) esting deferring on the ultimate issue o! treat)
‘aning. This is not so. The Growers confuse a district

ourt’s | indings regarding the treaty negotiators ‘knowledg

lesires with the ultimate question of the United Stat

In some cases the evidence regard

4
1 the tribes’ intent.
former might be equivocal, and where the district cou
‘cht draw one conclusion from that indeterminacy,
opellate court might as a legal matter draw another
er cases. however, the findings might be so strong a
nt reasonably only in one direction. This 1s such a case
The district court found that the American treal
‘tiators were familiar with the terms and practices ol
fish industry as they prevailed on both the east coast
the Washington Territory (indeed, George Gibbs’ writi
plicitly equate the two). App. 64-660, 71. It further be
at the treating Indians had knowledge of those terms and
ictices by virtue of their exposure to them at Shoalws
App. 65-66. And it found that the choice of the ten
ds staked or cultivated” in the shellfish proviso was
‘dent. but that “staked” and “‘cultivated” beds were wide!
derstood to refer to beds of shellfish created by citize
ere natural shellfish beds of that type did not exist. Ap]
78. These findings do strongly suggest the conclusio!
he treaty prohibits tribal shellfishing only from artifici
but that the evidence here is so strong does not mea!
a less deferential standard of review should
ployed, any more than a different standard of revie'
‘ld be called for where a trial court determines |
nfession was involuntary based on factual findings U

Ter

?

fendant had been tortured before confessing

To the contrary, the weight of the evidence provide

other reason for denying certiorari. The district cour
peatedly described the proof in support of the tnbe
terpretation of the proviso as “compelling and persuasive

LAT]

55. and the Court of Appeals was clearly of the

Y

a t )
rile ‘
? ,
‘)
} ry ;
7 rr
\ ,
ert
(oT
i ?
vy wi
'
+ ro
vy ivi
aal iT
i call
|
7-3;
)
‘7 t}
i ‘
—,.
alii
)
ty .
VET
\
sisi
“~vT ‘ + ¢}
5 ( [
19
7 BT,
}
,
}
; ;
0 1¢
ur KDeT
'

The

Proviso

recite
al ‘
thy, y
L248 i .
IS@) nro}.
i Ji
' 1
‘- ;
S| nec
; }
\A :
1
i ;
‘ ‘
h4
} } ¢ |
+ th rr
() )
i iv }
| ’ | 7?
{ 1
, i ¥ ‘
‘ . |
Y oT ’
a i
| ¥ y
' ) )
Tf? 7 TT)
+} " ;
vv
{ 72. }
‘ ; by
? ’ ’
,
»? }
4
‘ 7
\ Ly
Tt + th
Giivl Lit
i}
bes ; +}
ri lak
rn) ;
na ty
19

Meaning

7 ’
mit { +
ry ? Trer,
Lliat that
D
'
’
r \
nar
Wa .
r 4 ,
PLAl » > at
" ‘
; ’
I U ila
, . ot
i
, ’ ? ’
{
/ P ,
17 }
A scat
) | ryri¢
aS Al \
fit ‘
ALLL
\ f

S

| > sal are

141-42 (1983); Board of Coun

308 U.S. at 351; United States v. Minnesota,
/ fates \ California

advocated by

46, 757 (1993) [he position
| | | , .
rs therefore has no relevance to the outcom«¢ [

Petitioners’ Overstated Claims of Hardship Do
Support a Rewriting of the Treaties.

roughout their arguments, petitioner i
ns of the courts below are highly unfair and wil
stating impact on them. While clearly design
der sympathy th ums are both fa
' ind an inappropriate D ror certiorari
com mpossible to square petitioner
th tl holding belov Phu vi
ler and UPOW petitioners allege that unfettered
to their propertie will ause them
ivenienct and emotional harm the nov
wledge tl tringent limitations that the courts b
sed OF ich access in response to their concerns
nay harvest shellfish from private tidelands onl
out of every year (with slight increases fo!
rties), and they may do so only after having give
it least a month’s notice and after having cond
rm y definiti e| guantifyin t
r e on tnose ti 1 | | ADD }.-4
nract : tear t .
T |
‘

30

Circuit remanded to the district court the question of the
natural productivity of the growe’s’ beds. The tribes have
already conceded, however, that virtually all of the growers’
oyster and mussel beds are artificial, App. 106, exempting
approximately 66% of the total value of the shellfish
commercially harvested from Washington tidelands from
any tribal share. PL-988, Tbl. 50. The remaining 34% of the
commercial harvest is largely in the form of clams, and here
again it is clear that much of the growers’ production results
from their efforts. The total tribal share of the natural
production will therefore likely be very small compared to
the growers’ overall harvest.

Petitioners, of course, make no mention of the hardship
and poverty suffered by the tribes because of years of
exclusion from their fisheries. Even more fundamentally,
petitioners’ allegations of harm cannot serve as a basis for
interpreting what the treaties mean. It is a cardinal rule that
“even Indian treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded
beyond their clear terms to remedy a claimed injustice.”
Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423,
432 (1943). See also Northwestern Bands of Shoshone
Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335, 353 (1945). This rule
is often applied to the detriment of Indian tribes; it applies
with equal force when non-Indians seek to rewrite treaty
terms to avoid a claimed injustice. This Court is simply not
in the business of recrafting treaty promises that only
Congress may amend, and petitioners’ overstated claims of
harm therefore do not create a basis for certiorari.

CONCLUSION
The petitions for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
RIYAZ A. KANJI PHILLIP E. KATZEN
WILLIAMS AND CONNOLLY Counsel of Record
725 12th Street N.W. COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
Washington, D.C. 20005 101 Yesler Way, Suite 301
(202) 434-5000 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-0838

Attorneys for Respondents the Jamestown, Lower Elwha and Port

Gamble Bands of S’Klaillams, Nisqually, Nooksack, Sauk-Suiattle,

Skokomish, Squaxin Island, Stillaguamish and Upper Skagit Tribes
(Additional Attorneys and Respondents Continued)

DANIEL RAAS

HARRY JOHNSEN

OFFICE OF THE
RESERVATION ATTORNEY

Attorneys for the Lummi Indian Tribe

1503 “E” Street

P.O Box 5746

Bellingham, WA 98227-5746
(360) 647-0234

RICHARD BERLEY
JOHN ARUM
MARK SLONIM

ZIONTZ, CHESTNUT, VARNELL,

BERLEY & SLONIM
Attorneys for the Makah Tribe
2101 Fourth Avenue

Suite 1230

Seattle, WA 98121-2331
(206) 448-1230

BILL TOBIN

Attorney for the Nisqually Tribe
1209 Courthouse Square

P.O. Box 1425

Vashon, WA 98070

(206) 463-3147

KEVIN R. LYON

RON WHITENER
Attorneys for the

Squaxin Island Tribe

112 East Fourth Avenue
Suite 200

Olympia, WA 98501-1103
(360) 786-5005

MASON D. MORISSET
MORISSET, SCHLOSSER,
AYER & JOZWIAK
Attorney for the Tulalip Tribes
1115 Norton Building

801 Second Avenue

Seattle, WA 98104-1509
(206) 386-5200

ANNETTE M. KLAPSTEIN
JOHN HOWARD BELL
DEBRA S. O’GARA

LAW OFFICE OF THE
PUYALLUP TRIBE

Attorneys for the Puyallup Tribe
2002 East 28th Street

Tacoma, WA 98404

(253) 597-6200

ROBERT L. OTSEA, JR.
ALAN STAY

Attorneys for the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe

39015 172nd Avenue S.E.
Auburn, WA 98002

(253) 939-3311

RUTH KENNEDY

GARVEY, SCHUBERT

& BARER

Attorneys for the Quileute Tribe
1191 Second Avenue

18th Floor

Seattle, WA 98101-2939

(206) 464-3939

32

KATHRYN NELSON
EISENHOWER & CARLSON PLLC
Attorneys for the Port Gamble,

Lower Elwha and Jamestown Bands
of S'Klallams and the

Skokomish Tribe

1201 Pacific Avenue

1200 Wells Fargo Plaza

Tacoma, WA 98402

(253) 572-4500

NETTIE ALVAREZ
RICHARD RALSTON
RALSTON & ALVAREZ
Attorneys for the Hoh Tribe
1420 Fifth Avenue

Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 224-2882

ALLAN E. OLSON

ALIX FOSTER

Attorneys for the

Swinomish Indian Community
P.O. Box 817

LaConner, WA 98257

(360) 466-3163

EDWARD G. MALONEY
Attorney for the Upper Skagit Tribe
2284 Community Plaza

Sedro Woolley, WA 98284

(360) 856-5501

JEFFREY JON BODE
Attorney for the Nooksack Tribe
215 West Holly Street, #G-7
P.O. Box 6092

Bellingham, WA 98227-6092
(360) 734-4219

HAROLD CHESNIN
MATHEWS, GARLINGTON-
MATHEWS & CHESNIN- |
Attorney for the

Upper Skagit Tribe

219 South Washington

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 621-7557

JOHN SLEDD
Attorney for the
Suquamish Tribe

P.O. Box 498
Suquamish, WA 98392
(360) 598-3311

RICHARD REICH
Attorney for the
Quinault Indian Nation
P.O. Box 189

1214 Aalis

Taholah, WA 98587
(350) 276-8211

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386018_1050%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.