Abstract
Judge George Hugo Boldt’s 1974 opinion in United States v. Washington was a landmark decision in the recognition of treaty fishing rights for tribes in western Washington. Not only did it recognize the entitlement to 50% of harvestable yields of fish within the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing sites, but it also provided a permanent injunction to protect future fishing rights for generations to come. Now, over fifty years since the original “Boldt decision” was made, judges in the Ninth Circuit are debating whether the continued injunction to litigate intertribal disputes over treaty fishing rights is proper. This article considers a breadth of federal precedent to allege that tribes still maintain the same right to litigate treaty fishing concerns in the United States District Court in the Western District of Washington, just as they were entitled to in 1974.
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Race Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, Water Law Commons