federal recognition which began in january of one nine hundred seventy two two years before the decision and us the washington was even issued up holding treaty fishing rights and that struggle ended in november  seventy four and us versus washington and the sound of strife sought to obtain treaty status from the exercise of fishing rights the united states the state of washington and several of the other tribes opposed sanish at that time on the grounds of the spanish tribe was not recognized and that federal recognition was necessary for treaty status and the exercise of treaty fishing rights throughout the grounds that there was n organized tribal structure which is different words that really that's correct i was talking about the grounds for opposition and now judge both in us mean washington his primary basis for denying intervention was on the grounds that the trial was not federally recognized the ninth circuit overturns that on the basis that the lower court had used the wrong legal standard part so what i said legal s washington was granted treaty status the one example cited by the opposition the she held us case as a tribe that walked away from the treaty grounds and so didn't have treaty status so clearly that was relevant and if you look at was no roster during the time this case was going on and spanish tried to intervene and we showed in our record that the united states only conducted recognition of the terminations on an ad hoc basis it had started to do it as a result of the passage of the indian we organisation act in one nine hundred thirty four the most common method of federal recognition is when a tried enters into a treaty with the united states but in the late sixty's and we showed this and this was discussed in the recognition proceeding the federal government started struggling with the fact that they didn't have this roster like you're talking about and they developed a list in one nine hundred sixty six of all the tribes that the united states had dealings with and they original draft of that last which was drafted by a lower b i a clerk in the department of interior listed the sam machine new nation on the list and the what was going on with the bull and judge by the sandwich tribe during that same time they had filed to intervene and claim treaty status and judge ball's original case was up on appeal before the ninth circuit there was a lot of confusion going on at the time and the ninth circuit came down with the maintenance of an organized tribal structure standard in the middle of the one nine hundred seventy five at the same time for example the ash was trying to meet the standards there were two groups of tris who got treaty status and both won washington one recognized tribes and then there were two or three i don't recognise tribes and those tribes you look at the factual findings they had a trial constitution and they had a role that had been a membership role and they've been approved so sam michelle i submitted i think seven exhibits in front of the magistrate to meet those by the time sanish try came out for a full hearing to know you're on before a judge called the maintenance of an organized tribal structure standard existed at the same time though judge all had already ruled that he had no authority to decide the issue of federal recognition that was beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court it was within the exclusive purview of the executive branch so both these proceedings are going on at the same time the important point here is that throughout anybody asking to stage is proceeding well you know listen and tell them and tell the federal recognition proceedings were completed and there is some evidence that that occurred at the ninth circuit level there's also a stay it would have been nice if there had been a stay because recognition was clearly relevant but there was none and there was no decision so sandwich was stuck in a limbo state at that point with regard to its recognition at the same time throughout the proceedings in washington to the united states is making repeated representations as we pointed out to the magistrate during final argument i'm in a special master to judge in a separate proceeding that's even admission by the united states that that should have taken place couldn't take place in washington and that they were going to keep the court informed and i led the united states to believe that they had reached an agreement or had made repeated assurances to the united states if they went enter into a settlement agreement and abide by that agreement and then backed out after the timeframe had passed and  were in the litigation regarding treaty rights necessary parties to the recognition proceeding before the board of immigration and party yes the by the board of indian prayers in the ninth circuit that in a proceeding which is in effect next party to order the trucker's sandwich gets recognition and you wish this court to say that that recognition can be used to afford fishing back to washington one and fully and independently and those are the terms that the night circuit used in the one nine hundred ninety three samaj recognition case litigate the issue where all of the tribes that are parties to u which in the recognition proceeding that that the judge in a straight of law judge found to also be part of the spanish tried now this is where you find that these issues were raised and litigated in the recognition proceeding tried he united states thereafter you know laterally x party by improper means removed that finding from the administrative judges recommend a decision he also removed the finding that the sanish try findings that's what judges l a refer to them as and reinstated those and the findings and the judgment of the court issued in the recognition proceeding was that the sandwich tried was a successor to the new in her decision the district court stated the finality concerns were overriding and therefore categorically denied the sanish the ability to intervene you saw when we came back in our motion the grounds that sandwich would be interjecting itself into the original proceeding which is a necessary result of becoming part of the original case and it would require we allocation of the rights so the  any participation in the original case would be to overriding a concern and so the judge was required to strike that balance and she didn't do selling this case she just denied the tried and she didn't accord any peterson from the department of justice i will be sharing my time morning with daniel that who represents the tribal appleb the question for this court today is really not what happened in the course of the sandwich prods recognition proceedings but rather whether the outcome in one thousand nine hundred six of those independent proceedings is an extraordinary circumstance  clear from this court's two decisions in the green case was green against the united states and then subsequently green against luke that it that this court ruled that the decision regarding successorship to the sammis treaty rights had been definitively decided by the courts which have the capability to do that courts are competent to make decisions regarding successorship legal rights under treaties they do not have the authority to determine title recognition rights but those rights and treaty rights have been ruled repeatedly by this court to be independent  think it might be a useful illustration here to look at the supreme court decision in united states against john for example which is that for thirty seven united states six thirty four that's recognized group no longer existed in mississippi and the law was that those indians remaining behind were to be assimilated with the with the residents of mississippi and were not entitle to the tree to the rights and benefits accorded to indian tribes but that group remained in mississippi and remained a tribal structure remained socially cohesive and eventually achieved federal recognition and received the the rights and benefits attendant upon federal recognition that did not create a new choctaw treaty successor the treaty successor was a separate group that was now in indian country in oklahoma the mississippi talk taliban nonetheless is a fully recognized indian tribe entitled to all of the rights and all of the benefits that are attendant upon federal recognition for the tribe and its members so i think that illustrates clearly why the two independent decisions which which can intersect for example at the to the point where treaty rights are determined it is it is reasonable for the court to consider the fact that the united states has had a continuing government to government relationship with a tribe signatory to a treaty to determine the present day tribe with which it continues to have that government to government relationship is the same tribe that signed the treaty in this case the court decided to reverse it the treaty no longer had a government to government relationship with the united states and could no longer have one because it had not retained the necessary social and political cohesiveness the decision of the secretary of the interior is not to the contrary it decided that a group of spanish indians among one of probably three or more identifiable groups of sanish indians after the treaty recognized indian tribe and entitled to all of the rights and benefits attendant on that status it is not the tribe the time the treaty that decision was already made by this court in its one nine hundred eighty one decision and nothing in the in the record before the secretary is contrary to that although sanish likes to to reiterate that the secretary has found that it the present day sam is tried is the legal successor to the treaty signatory sanish it has never made that finding there is no findings to that effect in any of the record before the secretary or in the federal register announcement of the tribes recognition so there is no reason why the tribes recognition should now become an extraordinary circumstance that could have sat a twenty year old precedent when the twenty year old precedent is fully consistent with the secretary's now determination that the salmon strike decision there is no reason to believe that except that recognized tribes generally were treated as tree tribes based on the full historical record but there is no reason why santa should get a different treatment now when it put its full historical record before the court just as did all those other tribes in the original washington to proceedings their race it has not even suggested that there were that there was a defect in that was proceeding or that it was historical record that record was considered first by magistrates then by a district judge and then by this court in washington to it put in the full historical record that was needed at the same historical record that was needed in the recognition proceedings in this court which was intended in this court to make the art the that for purposes of treaty successorship the group before it had not established a continuity of organized tribal structure in other words it was not that same track that had signed the treaty and was it had not succeeded  legal rights the secretary's decision was that the tribe in front of it had for a very long time although the record really doesn't go back much says substantiate this prior to one thousand nine hundred ten a cohesive social group with  political structure sufficient to meet the criteria for tribal recognition and therefore its members should be entitled to the benefits of the programs that are in place for her moves or mission the group he was fighting to be recognition petition but which isn't in there and needn't be because as i suggested by offering the illustration of the john decision in the supreme court a federally recognized tribes needs to have had political and social structure sufficient to meet the criteria for federal recognition for a long history but it need not have always been the very same tribe and even sandwich doesn't claim that this tribe was always the same that the treaty it didn't so in fact although sandwich is correct recognition and has been based on sort of historical dealings government to government relationships that had long existed that the that the that the interior department didn't keep special track up and following the indian reorganization act it did become critical to know who the groups were that were entitled to the benefits of a statute and actually following that  and subsequent ones but it is it is of no consequence just sandwiches treaty rights that there wasn't a process for determining recognition at that time because there was a and a few of the others were educated as as treaty tribes that was on the basis of a full consideration of the factual record over which this court is held the courts have the recognition and the reason why this is the district courts conclusion that it had discretion to deny that motion is because they have already presented all their evidence and the status as this court has held is in consequential to that a marginal influence and sam it recognizes that so the opportunity that they're fighting so hard for is to prevent that is which is entitle to no deference under this court's ruling and which could have only marginal effect on thank you there are a couple of matters that i would like to clear out before beginning my the main part of my argument first question you raised as to what the district circumstances you mean something outside the control of the party who is green the sixty's emotion outside of the control of the party that the party could have prevented at the original trial there's they were properly represented there's no claim that there was an unfair proceeding their state didn't have was the conclusion of the board when the figures that they were recognise tried  right allocations which have been settled among the tribes in the state in the united states for some twenty six years it's this kind of interruption that the trial court was talking about edition there are decision at the time in one nine hundred ninety three there was virtually no chance that the sanest tribe was going to be recognize the court call it the district court call it an unlikely and speculative advance even a district court the full due process hearing and i do want to address the at the information is being made at the sandwich tribe had a full and fair opportunity to present all the evidence and the original u s c washington proceeding they are separate issues they involve different evidence rez recognition involves a quick number of criteria trainee status only involves one but i want to point out to the court an interesting analogy here what happened is we had the court sixty six in which he said i don't have enough evidence to rule on the issue of treaty status i would like the parties and particularly the spanish try the other tribe to submit additional evidence if they have it in june and november of that year but then judge bat signed the findings of fact and conclusions of law that had been prepared even before he issued that order and therefore that order doesn't even incorporate or include the evidence that the spanish tried submitted after the hearing that the judge asked for its case and met all the evidence that was in the recognition proceeding it would have been the same result if he found maybe he did but we don't know that he