Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States v. Washington
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 4 1975
Full Name
  • United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenors-Defendants, Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited and Gary Ellis, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenors-Defendants, Washington Reef Net Owners Association, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Quinault Tribe of Indians, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Hoh Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes And Bands of The Yakima Indian Nation, Upper Skagit River Tribe, And Quileute Indian Tribe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellee, Thor C. Tollefson, Etc. et al., Intervenors-Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenors-Defendants, Carl Crouse, Director of The Department of Game, The Washington State Game Commission, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenors-Defendants, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Defendants, Washington Reef Net Owners Association, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Plaintiffs, Puyallup Tribe of Puyallup Reservation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellee, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians, et al., Plaintiffs, Nisqually Indian Community of The Nisqually Reservation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellee, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Defendants
Citation520 F.2d 676
Case history
Prior history384 F.Supp. 312
Subsequent historycertiorari denied by 423 U.S. 1086 (1976)
Holding
"[The] state could regulate fishing rights guaranteed to the Indians only to the extent necessary to preserve a particular species in a particular run; that trial court did not abuse its discretion in apportioning the opportunity to catch fish between whites and Indians on a 50-50 basis; that trial court properly excluded Indians' catch on their reservations from apportionment; and that certain tribes were properly recognized as descendants of treaty signatories and thus entitled to rights under the treaties. [Affirmed and remanded]."
Court membership
Judges sittingHerbert Choy, Alfred Goodwin, and District Judge James M. Burns (sitting by designation)
Case opinions
MajorityChoy
ConcurrenceBurns

Ninth Circuit opinion

[edit]

Here is a summary of the Ninth Circuit opinion. Note that the first citation is a full-citation, but you may want to change this to a short citation (you cite to the Ninth Circuit opinion in the section about the district court opinion). Feel free to edit any of this as you see fit:

After the District Court issued its ruling, both sides submitted appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1] Washington argued that the district court had no power to invalidate state fishing regulations, while the tribes argued "the state may not regulate their fishing activities at treaty locations for any reason".[2] Writing for a majority of the court, Circuit Court Judge Herbert Choy affirmed Judge Boldt's opinion "in all respects", but clarified that Judge Boldt's "equitable apportionment" of harvestable fish did not apply to "fish caught by non-Washington citizens outside the state's jurisdiction".[3]
In his majority opinion, Judge Choy emphasized that states may not enact regulations that are "in conflict with treaties in force between the United States and the Indian nations".[4] Consequently, he concluded that the treaties signed in the 1850s expressly preempted Washington's regulations and that non-indians had "only a limited right to fish at treaty places."[5] Judge Choy also emphasized that the tribes were "entitled to an equitable apportionment of the opportunity to fish in order to safeguard their federal treaty rights" and that the Ninth Circuit should grant the district court a "great amount of discretion as a court of equity" when apportioning rights to fisheries.[6] He held that the district court's apportionment "was well within its discretion," but clarified that tribes were not entitled to compensation for "unanticipated heavy fishing" that occurred off Washington's coast.[7] Judge Choy also clarified that the district court's equitable remedy should attempt to minimize hardships for white reef net fishermen.[8]
District court judge James M. Burns, sitting by designation, wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he criticized the "recalcitrance of Washington State officials" in their management of the state's fisheries.[9] Judge Burns argued that Washington's recalcitrance forced Judge Boldt to act as "perpetual fishmaster" and noted that he "deplore[d]" situations in which district court judges are forced to act as "enduring managers of the fisheries, forests, and highways".[10] In his concluding remarks, Judge Burns argued that Washington's responsibility to manage its natural resources "should neither escape notice nor be forgotten."[11]
After the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the direct appeal, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.[12] Washington submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Supreme Court denied the state's petition for certiorari and subsequent petition for rehearing.[13] Despite these rulings, the parties in the original case continued to litigate issues relating to apportionment of the fisheries and subsequent rulings have been issued as recently as May 2015.[14]

Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thought: you may want to make a sub-heading for the paragraph about Judge Burns' decision (titled something like "Concurring opinion of Judge Burns"), and you may want to move the last paragraph to the subsequent developments section, because it is about more than just this specific appeal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 1975).
  2. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 682 n.2, 684.
  3. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 688-90, 693.
  4. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 685 (noting that "the Indians negotiated the treaties as at least quasi-sovereign nations").
  5. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 685.
  6. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 687.
  7. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 687.
  8. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 691-92.
  9. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 693 (Burns, J., concurring).
  10. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 693 (Burns, J., concurring) (internal quotations omitted).
  11. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 693 (Burns, J., concurring); Mary Christina Wood, The Tribal Property Right to Wildlife Capital (Part II): Asserting a Sovereign Servitude to Protect Habitat of Imperiled Species, 25 Vt. L. Rev. 355, 419 (2001) (discussing Judge Burns' criticisms of judges acting as "fishmasters"); Michael C. Blumm & Jane G. Steadman, Indian Treaty Fishing Rights and Habitat Protection: The Martinez Decision Supplies a Resounding Judicial Reaffirmation, 49 Nat. Resources J. 653, 699 n.273 (2009) (discussing Judge Burns' criticism of state officials).
  12. ^ Washington, 520 F.2d at 693.
  13. ^ Washington v. United States, 423 U.S. 1086 (1976) (denying certiorari); Washington v. United States, 424 U.S. 978 (1976) (denying rehearing).
  14. ^ United States v. Washington, No. C70-9213, Subproceding 89-3-09, 2015 WL 3451316 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2015). For examples of further litigation in the Ninth Circuit, see, e.g., United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 773 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Washington, 730 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1984).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/United_States_v._Washington/archive1&oldid=679627254"