Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe
This text of Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, No. 18-35369
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-sp-00001-RSM
v. MEMORANDUM* QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION,
Defendants-Appellants,
HOH INDIAN TRIBE; et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2019** San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makah-indian-tribe-v-quileute-indian-tribe-ca9-2019.