MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE v. Hoh Indian Tribe; et al., Real Parties in Interest. (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE; Quinault Indian Nation, Defendants-Appellants, Hoh Indian Tribe; et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. 18-35369

Decided: September 30, 2019

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Beth A. Baldwin, Richard M. Berley, Wyatt F. Golding, Brian C. Gruber, Marc D. Slonim, Counsel, Ziontz Chestnut Varnell Berley & Slonim, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff - Appellee Lauren J. King, Attorney, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, WA, John A. Tondini, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant - Appellant Quileute Indian Tribe Eric J. Nielsen, Counsel, Nielsen, Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant - Appellant Quinault Indian Nation Craig J. Dorsay, Esquire, Attorney, Lea Ann Easton, Attorney, Dorsay & Easton LLP, Portland, OR, for Real Party in Interest Hoh Indian Tribe Mary Michelle Neil, Lummi Indian Nation, Office of the Reservation Attorney, Bellingham, WA, for Real Party in Interest Lummi Indian Nation Lauren Patricia Rasmussen, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Lauren P. Rasmussen, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Real Parties in Interest Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Howard G. Arnett, Attorney, Karnopp Petersen LLP, Bend, OR, James Rittenhouse Bellis, Esquire, Office of the Reservation Attorney, Suquamish, WA, John W. Ogan, Law Office of John W Ogan, Sisters, OR, for Real Party in Interest Suquamish Indian Tribe Timothy Brewer, Attorney, Tulalip Reservation Attorneys Office, Tulalip, WA, Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville, Seattle, WA, for Real Party in Interest Tulalip Tribes Emily Hutchinson Haley, Attorney, James M. Jannetta, Office of the Tribal Attorney, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, La Conner, WA, for Real Party in Interest Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Earle David Lees, III, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Shelton, WA, for Real Party in Interest Skokomish Indian Tribe David Babcock, Attorney, Sharon I. Haensly, Esquire, Attorney, Kevin Lyon, Squaxin Island Legal Dept, Shelton, WA, for Real Party in Interest Squaxin Island Tribe Meghan Elizabeth Gavin, Attorney, Cascadia Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Jay J. Manning, Esquire, Attorney, Cascadia Law Group PLLC, Olympia, WA, for Real Party in Interest Nisqually Indian Tribe Harold Chesnin, Attorney, Law Office of Harold Chesnin, Sedro Woolley, WA, David Stoller Hawkins, Attorney, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Wooley, WA, for Real Party in Interest Upper Skagit Indian Tribe John Howard Bell, Samuel Judge Stiltner, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Tacoma, WA, for Real Party in Interest Puyallup Tribe Gregory M. O'Leary, Summit Law Group, Seattle, WA, Robert L. Otsea, II, Chief Counsel, Alan C. Stay, Attorney, Ann Tweedy, Esquire, Tribal Attorney, Office of the Tribal Attorney, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, WA, for Real Party in Interest Muckleshoot Tribe Stephen Hayes Suagee, General Counsel, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA, for Real Party in Interest Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Scott Owen Mannakee, General Counsel, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Legal Department, Arlington, WA, Rob Roy Smith, Attorney, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA, for Real Party in Interest Stillaguamish Tribe Kerry Keefe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Real Party in Interest United States of America Michael S. Grossmann, Joseph V. Panesko, Assistant Attorney Generals, AGWA - Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Real Party in Interest State of Washington

MEMORANDUM **

We remanded this case to the district court to redraw the western boundaries of the ocean Usual and Accustomed Grounds and Stations (“U&A”) for the Quileute and Quinault tribes. The facts are familiar to the parties, and detailed in our earlier opinion, so we do not repeat them here. See Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, 873 F.3d 1157, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2017).

On remand, in redrawing the precise boundary for where the Quileute tribe could fish, the district court started with the same northernmost point it had previously used and drew a line forty miles west. See id. at 1167–68. But instead of following the longitude to set the western boundary, as it did in its first delineation, see id. at 1168, it drew a line south that was parallel to the coastline. It did the same for the Quinault tribe, using the relevant thirty-mile boundary from the Quinault U&A.

We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the redrawn boundaries and that they are fair and consistent with our previous decision. See id. at 1168. The boundaries set by the district court capture the respective outermost points that the Quileute and Quinault tribal fishermen would have traveled in 1855 in accordance with the U&A, and we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law