Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-07-35061/USCOURTS-ca9-07-35061-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Defendant,

No. 07-35061 and

D.C. Nos.

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, CV-70-09213-RSM

Defendant-Appellant,  SP-05-00003-RSM

v. ORDER AND

JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE; OPINION

LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE;

LUMMI INDIAN NATION; NISQUALLY

INDIAN TRIBE; PORT GAMBLE

S’KLALLAM TRIBE; SKOKOMISH

INDIAN TRIBE; TULALIP TRIBE,

Plaintiff-intervenors-Appellees,

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL

COMMUNITY,

Cross-claimant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

October 21, 2008—Seattle, Washington

209

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 1 of 13
Filed January 5, 2010

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer and

Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Rymer;

Dissent by Judge Kleinfeld

210 UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 2 of 13
COUNSEL

Michelle Hansen, Office of Tribal Attorney, Suquamish,

Washington, for appellant Suquamish Tribe. Douglas B.L.

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 211

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 3 of 13
Endreson, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry,

Washington, D.C., for appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe.

Lorane F. Hebert, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., for

appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. 

Harold Chesnin, Office of the Tribal Attorney, Sedro Woolley, Washington, (argued); Andrew H. Salter, Seattle, Washington, for appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. James M.

Jannetta, LaConner, W Washington, for appellee Swinomish

Indian Tribal Community. Lauren P. Rasmussen, Law Offices

of Lauren P. Rasmussen, Seattle, Washington, for appellees

Port Gamble S’Klallam and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes.

Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & McGaw,

Seattle, Washington, for appellee The Tulalip Tribes. 

Richard M. Berley, Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley &

Slonim, Seattle, Washington, for intervenor-appellants. 

ORDER

The petition for rehearing, filed August 20, 2009, is

GRANTED and the petition for rehearing en banc is denied

as moot.

This court’s opinion filed, August 6, 2009 and published at

Upper Skagit Tribe v. Washington, 576 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.

2009), is hereby withdrawn. A new opinion is filed concurrently herewith. 

OPINION

RYMER, Circuit Judge:

This case arises out of, and is a sub-proceeding of, United

States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974)

212 UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 4 of 13
(“Decision I”), where Judge Boldt determined the usual and

accustomed fishing grounds (“U&A”) for Puget Sound tribes.

Invoking the district court’s continuing jurisdiction, id. at 419,

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe1 filed a Request for Determination

that Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay on the eastern side of

Whidbey Island are not within the Suquamish Tribe’s U&A

(Subproceeding 05-3). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did not

intend to include those areas in Suquamish’s U&A, and

accordingly granted summary judgment for Upper Skagit. We

affirm.

I

As we previously said, “[w]e cannot think of a more comprehensive and complex case than this.” United States v.

Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 775 (9th Cir. 1990).

In short, Judge Boldt defined “usual and accustomed grounds

and stations” as “every fishing location where members of a

tribe customarily fished from time to time at and before treaty

times, however distant from the then usual habitat of the tribe,

and whether or not other tribes then also fished in the same

waters.” Decision I, 384 F. Supp. at 332; United States v.

Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Decision I). The term “customarily” does not include “occasional and incidental” fishing or trolling incidental to travel.

Decision I, 384 F. Supp. at 353. Tribes are entitled to take up

to 50 percent of the harvested fish from runs passing through

their off-reservation U&A grounds. Id. at 343.2

1

Jamestown S’Klallam and Port Gamble S’Klallam joined as plaintiffintervenors, as did the Tulalip Tribes. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community filed a cross-Request for Determination to the same general effect as

Upper Skagit’s. For convenience, we refer to these parties collectively as

Upper Skagit unless context requires otherwise. 

2We substantially affirmed Decision I in United States v. Washington,

520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), and the Supreme Court upheld the decision

with slight modification in Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979). 

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 213

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 5 of 13
Judge Boldt determined Suquamish’s U&A during supplemental proceedings on April 9-11, 1975. See United States v.

Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1048-50 (W.D. Wash. 1978)

(“Decision II”). The evidence consisted of the April 9 testimony and report of Dr. Barbara Lane, an expert for the United

States on tribal identity, treaty status and fisheries for all of

the tribes who intervened in the original proceedings in Decision I. She provided a map of Suquamish fishing sites, and

her testimony also addressed a map attached to proposed

Suquamish fishing regulations that outlined disputed areas of

Suquamish’s and other tribes’ U&As. Based on this evidence,

Judge Boldt ruled that the Suquamish had made a “prima

facie” showing that its U&A fishing grounds were: “the

marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of

Vashon Island to the Fraser River including Haro and Rosario

Straits, the streams draining into the western side of this portion of Puget Sound and also Hood Canal.” Finding of Fact

No. 5 (FF 5), Decision II, 459 F. Supp. at 1049.3

In this Subproceeding, Upper Skagit alleges that the Suquamish began fishing in the Subproceeding Area4

 for the first

time in 2004. It seeks an order determining that the portion of

Saratoga Passage from the Snatelum Point Line to the Greenbank Line and Skagit Bay to the Deception Pass bridge is not

3

In May 1985 the Suquamish filed a Request for Determination to determine their U&A on the eastern side of Puget Sound. See Suquamish, 901

F.2d at 774. We noted that “[a]t the time of the Treaty of Point Elliott, [the

Suquamish] did not fish in those areas, which were the usual and accustomed fishing places of the Duwamish.” Id. The Suquamish unsuccessfully argued that they were successors in interest to the Duwamish. We

referred to the Suquamish’s U&A as being the “west side of Puget Sound”

whereas the Duwamish’s was on the eastern side. Id. at 774, 776 n.9. 

4The Upper Skagit originally defined the Subproceeding Area as Saratoga Passage, from the Greenbank Line north to the Snatelum Point Line,

and Skagit Bay. The Swinomish cross-request defines the case area for

their purposes as Catch Reporting Area 24C. Thus, as the district court

described it, the case area encompasses that portion of Saratoga Passage

within Catch Reporting Area 24C, plus Skagit Bay. 

214 UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 6 of 13
a U&A for the Suquamish. Upper Skagit argued in district

court that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt in 1975

that Suquamish’s U&A included those areas. Suquamish, on

the other hand, contended that Judge Boldt’s definition of its

U&A unambiguously included the contested areas.

The district court adhered to a two-step procedure in keeping with our decisions in Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian

Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Muckleshoot I”),

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 234 F.3d

1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Muckleshoot II”), and United States v.

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000)

(“Muckleshoot III”). First, it determined that Upper Skagit

had the burden to offer evidence that FF 5 was ambiguous, or

that Judge Boldt intended something other than its apparent

meaning (i.e., all salt waters of Puget Sound). Second, if the

evidence, including contemporaneous understanding of the

extent of “the marine waters of Puget Sound,” showed that

“Puget Sound” as used in the Suquamish U&A included the

Subproceeding Area, Upper Skagit had the burden to show

that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished on the east side of Whidbey Island or traveled

there in route to the San Juans and the Fraser River area. 

Applying this analysis, the court found that “Puget Sound”

as defined by Judge Boldt included the waters of Saratoga

Passage and Skagit Bay.5 However, based on the actual evidence that was before Judge Boldt, the district court in this

Subproceeding concluded that the judge meant something

other than this in FF 5 given that nothing in the record showed

5Among other things, this was based on FF 164 in Decision I, adopting

the definition of “Puget Sound” in the “Joint Statement Regarding the

Biology, Status, Management, and Harvest of the Salmon and Steelhead

Resources of the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula Drainage Area of

Western Washington,” 384 F. Supp. at 382-83, which included “the Strait

of Juan de Fuca and all saltwater areas inland therefrom”; Judge Boldt’s

several references to “Puget Sound” as a broad area; and maps indicating

that “Puget Sound” encompassed a very broad region. 

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 215

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 7 of 13
the Suquamish fished on the east side of Whidbey Island, or

traveled through there on their way up to the San Juans and

the Fraser River area. The court noted that Judge Boldt relied

heavily on Dr. Lane’s reports and testimony. While she did

say that the Suquamish traveled widely by canoe (as was

“normal” for “all Indians in Western Washington”), Lane provided no evidence that the tribe fished or traveled in Saratoga

Passage or Skagit Bay.6 Her report listed places where the

Suquamish traditionally took fish, but neither Saratoga Passage nor Skagit Bay was among them.7

 And when asked about

a map delineating areas of Puget Sound where the Suquamish

traveled, Lane referred only to areas that omitted Saratoga

Passage and Skagit Bay. The Suquamish pointed out that they

fished at the mouth of the Snohomish River, which is on the

eastern side of Whidbey Island, but this area is well south of

the Subproceeding Area and was described by Lane as a fall

and winter fishing site at the mouth of a river, which was

“separate and distinct from the spring and summer travels up

to the Fraser River.” Further, the district court noted the

Suquamish’s position that they maintained close relations

with the Skagit and Snohomish people, who had fishing

camps on Whidbey and Camano Islands, but thought it would

be speculative to conclude this meant that the Suquamish

must necessarily have camped and fished there as well.

Finally, the court found that Judge Boldt’s description of the

6Geographically, Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay are nearly enclosed

or inland waters to the east of Whidbey Island. The southern entrance to

these waters includes Possession Sound and the mouth of the Snohomish

River, where the Suquamish were known to fish seasonally. The northern

exits through Deception Pass and Swinomish Slough are narrow and

restricted; both areas were controlled by the Swinomish at treaty times. 

7The places Dr. Lane listed where the Suquamish fished for salmon,

herring, steelhead, halibut, and shellfish by trolling, spearing, nets, or traps

were: Apple Cove Point, Hood Canal, Dye’s Inlet, Liberty Bay, the head

of Sinclair Inlet, Skunk Bay, Union River and Curley Creek, Blake Island,

Jefferson Head, Point to Point, Rich’s Passage, Orchard Point, Indianola,

Ross Point, Miller’s Bay, Agate Passage, and the area between Chico and

Erland’s point. 

216 UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 8 of 13
Suquamish U&A tracks nearly verbatim the language in Dr.

Lane’s report, demonstrating the judge’s intent to conform the

Suquamish U&A only to those areas documented by Lane.

The Suquamish timely appealed.

II

[1] The Suquamish mainly fault the district court for having

engaged in a sufficiency of the evidence analysis instead of

accepting Judge Boldt’s unambiguous definition of “Puget

Sound.” In our view, however, the court faithfully followed

the Muckleshoot construct. As Muckleshoot III indicates,

whether the language of one of Judge Boldt’s findings is

ambiguous is a factor in ascertaining the judge’s intent, but

not a dispositive one, because it is necessary to understand the

findings “in light of the facts of the case.” 235 F.3d at 433

(internal quotation marks omitted). This means that, as the

district court held here, the tribe asserting ambiguity in a

U&A determination must offer “ ‘evidence that suggests that

[the U&A] is ambiguous or that the court intended something

other than its apparent meaning.’ ” Id. (quoting Muckleshoot

I, 141 F.3d at 1358) (emphasis added in Muckleshoot III omitted). The determination is to be based on the record before

Judge Boldt as of April 18, 1975, when he established the

Suquamish’s U&A, but may also include additional evidence

if it sheds light on the understanding that Judge Boldt had of

the geography at the time. Muckleshoot II, 234 F.3d at 1100

(citing Muckleshoot I, 141 F.3d at 1360). 

[2] We agree with the district court that Upper Skagit met

this burden. There is no evidence in the record before Judge

Boldt that the Suquamish fished or traveled in the waters on

the eastern side of Whidbey Island, particularly in Saratoga

Passage or Skagit Bay. In addition to Dr. Lane’s testimony

and analysis upon which Judge Boldt relied heavily, the district court also reviewed the April 1975 hearing transcript for

the day after Lane testified to ascertain the judge’s intent. On

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 217

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 9 of 13
that occasion the state challenged the sufficiency of the

Suquamish’s prima facie showing that its U&A was as broad

as claimed. Rejecting that challenge, Judge Boldt ruled from

the bench:

The Court finds that a prima facie showing has been

made that travel and fishing of the Suquamish Tribe

through the north Sound areas; that is areas one and

two as designated by the state, was frequent and also

regular, not merely occasional, and the application of

the Suquamish for such a ruling is granted.

Transcript of proceedings, April 10, 1975 (emphasis added).

The currently disputed Subproceeding Area is not in Areas

One or Two, but in Area Four. Although Lane’s Report

showed that several areas on the west shores of Area Four

comprised Suquamish’s on-reservation territory and fishing

locations,8 there was no evidence from Lane or otherwise that

the east shores of Area Four, as well as Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage, were part of Suquamish’s U&A.9

8The district court was either mistaken, or misspoke, when it said that

the area designated as Area Four was not mentioned. Area Four was discussed in Dr. Lane’s Report, but the discussion pertained to the west

shores and not to that part of Area Four which includes Skagit Bay and

Saratoga Passage. 

9Given that the decision in this Subproceeding must be made on the

record that was before Judge Boldt, augmented only by evidence of contemporaneous understanding of ambiguous terms — which the district

court here gave the parties an opportunity to do — a trial on the merits

would reveal no additional relevant facts. In these circumstances, the district judge, who is also the trier of fact, may resolve conflicting inferences

and evaluate the evidence to determine Judge Boldt’s intent. See, e.g.,

Nunez v. Superior Oil Co., 572 F.2d 1119, 1123-24 (5th Cir. 1978); In re

First Capital Holdings Corp., 179 B.R. 902, 904-05 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.

1995) (Tashima, J.) (so holding). Nor, given the lack of any evidence of

Suquamish fishing or travel in these areas, let alone fishing that was more

than “incidental” or “occasional,” is there any basis for supposing that “it

is just as likely” that Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay were intended to

be included as that they were not. Cf. Lummi, 235 F.3d at 452. 

218 UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 10 of 13
[3] In addition, Judge Boldt used specific geographic

anchor points in describing other tribes’ U&As. See, e.g.,

Decision I, 384 F. Supp. at 360, 371 (Lummi and Puyallup

U&As); Decision II, 459 F. Supp. at 1049 (Nooksack, Swinomish and Tulalip U&As). From this it is reasonable to infer

that when he intended to include an area, it was specifically

named in the U&A. In Suquamish’s case, the only inclusive

geographic anchor points for the term “Puget Sound” are the

“Haro and Rosario Straits,” which do not include or delineate

the Subproceeding Area. That Judge Boldt neglected to

include Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage in the Suquamish’s

U&A supports our conclusion that he did not intend for them

to be included. See Lummi, 235 F.3d at 451-52. 

[4] The district court’s conclusion does not have the effect

of re-adjudicating Suquamish’s U&A or diminishing it, as the

Tribe contends, for the Suquamish never had the right to fish

in those areas in the first place. Nor is it necessary, as the

Suquamish suggests, to include the Subproceeding Area in its

U&A in order to reconcile Judge Boldt’s determination of the

Suquamish and Swinomish U&As in his April 18, 1975 order.

The Swinomish’s U&A used the phrase “marine areas of

northern Puget Sound,” but it also used geographic anchors

delineating an area that specifically included Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay. As the district court (and the Suquamish) recognized, the inquiry properly focuses on individual

U&As, and the fact that Judge Boldt defined “Puget Sound”

in one instance as including Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage

does not mean that references to “Puget Sound” in other

U&As always include those same areas. If anything, the

judge’s inclusion of reference points in one U&A but not in

another indicates a lack of intent to include them generically.

Finally, the Suquamish maintain that the district court erred

in considering its post-1975 fishing regulations, however as

we read the court’s order, it merely referred to the scope of

those regulations as an aside to the Suquamish’s understanding of its own U&A — not as evidence bearing on Judge

Boldt’s intent in determining that U&A.

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 219

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 11 of 13
[5] Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Judge

Boldt did not intend for Suquamish’s U&A to include Skagit

Bay and Saratoga Passage.10

AFFIRMED.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

In my view, the better reading of “Puget Sound” is that it

means “Puget Sound.” We are engaged in the odd activity of

deciding what a long deceased judge thought was accurate

history about what happened 150 years earlier. We cannot

retry the case. The best way to determine what the judge

thought is the language he used. He said “Puget Sound.” True,

a good case could have been made under the evidence for

something narrower, something along the lines the majority

describes. There was not much evidence, not much more than

a report by an anthropologist about what she thought had been

the various tribal patterns 150 years before, based on

extremely sparse evidence available to her. I laid out my view

more fully in the earlier decision in this case, Upper Skagit

Tribe v. Washington, 576 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2009). I could be

wrong, and today’s majority could be wrong, but I am pretty

sure that it is a mistake to reopen the matter without any more

chance of being right.

Continually revisiting Judge Boldt’s decades-old opinions

(and the limited record supporting them) in an attempt to discern what he thought the customs of multiple people were in

the 1850’s and earlier, besides being extremely burdensome

10Given this disposition, we do not need to reach Upper Skagit’s further

argument that Suquamish is judicially estopped from arguing that the term

“Puget Sound” is ambiguous. 

220 UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 12 of 13
and expensive, is a fundamentally futile undertaking. The

truth is not knowable. “This exercise is not law, and is not a

reliable way to find facts, so it is hard to see why courts are

doing it and how it could be preferable to the Indian tribes

working some dispute resolution system out for themselves.”

1

That we now reverse ourselves in this iteration of the case

underscores the futility of our pursuit moving forward and

demonstrates why Judge Boldt’s 1974 decree and its implementation process, continuing this case in perpetuity, should

be brought to an end.2

1U.S. v. Washington, 573 F.3d 701, 710-11 (9th Cir. 2009). 

2

See id.

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 221

Case: 07-35061 01/05/2010 ID: 7183094 DktEntry: 95-1 Page: 13 of 13