WASHINGTON ? As the Supreme Court began its fall session, it announced it would decline review of an appeal by the Muckleshoot Tribe in Washington state to extend treaty rights.
The decision comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against Muckleshoot attempts to extend the legal range of traditional fishing grounds under a 1974 court decision that said tribes in Washington state are entitled to 50 percent of the state’s fish harvest. In rejecting the tribe’s appeal, the court affirmed treaty rights of other tribes in Washington state.
Named after U.S. District Judge George Boldt, the 1974 ‘Boldt Decision’ has become the center of debate for a number of tribes in Washington seeking to clarify their fishing rights. The Muckleshoot Tribe, the Lummi Nation and the Confederated Chehalis Tribes all tested the scope of this decision, and challenged by other tribes in the state, they lost, with each case centered on the tribes’ definition of ‘usual and accustomed’ fishing grounds.
The Puyallup, Suquamish, and Swinomish tribes challenged the Muckleshoot attempt to expand fishing rights. The Muckleshoot are limited to fishing only in Elliot Bay and wanted to include certain sections of Puget Sound, based on language in the Boldt decision. The 9th Circuit rejected the Muckleshoot interpretation and said there was no evidence the tribe fished anywhere beyond Elliot Bay on a regular basis.
The 9th Circuit decision was based on interpretation of the phrase ‘secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound’ as used by Judge Boldt in his ruling. Boldt said the Muckleshoot’s primary fishing grounds are in Elliot Bay, but also said they were located ‘secondarily’ in Puget Sound. The term ‘secondarily’ is where the confusion lies, but the 9th Circuit said that Judge Boldt was clear in assigning their rights only to Elliot Bay.
‘Because we agree with the district court that the Muckleshoot’s saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area, as found by Judge Boldt, was limited to Elliot Bay, we affirm the grant of summary judgement for the Puyallup, Suquamish, and Swinomish Tribes,’ the court said.
With the Supreme Court denial of the Muckleshoot appeal, all legal avenues in this specific case are closed.
However, the Muckleshoot were successful in another fishing rights dispute with the Lummi Nation. The Lummi claimed fishing rights to the northern and southern suburbs of Seattle. Ruling in favor of a challenge by the Muckleshoot, the 9th Circuit said, at the same time it ruled against the Muckleshoot about Puget Sound, that the Lummi were restricted to fishing in the northern suburbs.