# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 38 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi ch ael D. Brown

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 38 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Je rry A. Rey es , als o k no wn as Ott o R ey es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 38 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la ntv.

Mar c L. Ly on s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 38 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Fred eri ck W . Tib be tt s, al so kn own as B ud Tib be tt s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 9, 2 01 4
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 10 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

-2

-App el le es Mi ch a e l B ro wn, Je rry Reyes, Mar c Ly on s, an d Fred eri ck Tib be tt s

were in di ct ed un de r th e Lacey Act whi ch m ak es it un la wfu l to "s el l . . . any fis h . .

.
ta ke n, po ss es se d, tra ns po rte d, or so ld in vi ol at io n of

. . . a ny In d i a n t r i b al la w." 16

U.S.C. § 33 72 (a)( 1)

. The in di ct m en ts al le ge d th at ap pe ll ees ha d n e t t e d fis h fo r

co m m erci al pu rp os es wit hi n th e bo un da rie s of th e Leech Lak e Res erv at io n in

vi ol at io n of th e Leech Lak e Co ns erv at io n Co de

, th en so ld th e f i s h

. App el le es are
Ch ip pe wa In di an s, an d th ey m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en ts on th e gr ou nd th at th ei r

pr os ecu ti on vi ol at es fis hi ng rig ht s res erved under th e 18 37 Treat y be twee n th e Uni te d

St at es an d th e Ch ip pe wa. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d t h e mo ti on s to di sm is s. The 1

Uni te d S ta te s app eal s, argu in g th at it s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Lacey Act di d n ot in fri ng e

on ap pe ll ees ' fis hi ng rig ht s. We affir m

.

I.

A.

Dur in g th e earl y 18 00 s Ch ip pe wa In d i a n s oc cu pi ed m uc h of pr es en t da y

Mi nn es ot a an d W is co ns in

. Ro na ld N. Sat z, Ch ip pe wa Treat y Ri gh ts : The Res erv ed

Ri gh ts of W is co ns in 's Ch ip pe wa In di an s i n H i st or ic al Pers pe ct iv e 1 (Car l N.
Hay woo d, ed

., 19 96 ). At le as t th ree th ou sa nd Ch ip pe wa r e s i d e d i n se ve n vi ll ag e

cen te rs at lo cat io ns in cl ud in g Leech Lak e. Id

. In Mi nn es ot a th ey co nt ro ll ed th e la nd

eas t of th e Mi ss is si pp i Ri ve r an d no rth of th e Cro w W in g Ri ve r. Wi l li am W at ts

Fo lwel l, A His to ry

of M in ne so ta 80 -8 1, 8 8 (S ol on J. Bu ck , ed., 1 92 1)

.

Hun ti ng , fis hi ng , g at he rin g, an d tra pp in g were es se nt ia l to th e su rv iv al an d

way s of li fe of In di an tri be s th ro ug h o u t N o r t h Am eri ca. Co he n's Han db oo k of

Fed eral In di an Law § 18 .01 at 11 54 (Nel l Je ss up Newto n ed

., 20 12 ). Su ch act iv it ie s

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-3

-"wer e no t m uc h l e ss ne ces sa ry to th e ex is te nc e of th e In di an s th an th e at m os ph ere

th ey br eat he d." Uni te d St at es v. W in an s, 19 8 U.S. 37 1, 38 1 (1 90 5)

. Thro ug ho ut th ei r

te rri to ry th e Ch ip pe wa fis he d, hu nt ed

, tra pp ed

, ga th ered wil d ric e, an d ta pp ed m ap le

t r e e s fo r su ga r. Sat z, Ch ip pe wa Treat y Ri gh ts at 1- 2. Fi sh in g an d hu nt in g were o f

su ch im po rta nc e th at a bo y's f

i rs t su cces s was pu bl ic ly cel eb rat ed

. Id

. at 2. In

ad di ti on to fis hi ng fo r su bs is te n c e p u r p o s es , Ch ip pe wa In di an s so ld th ei r cat ch to

tra de rs , fro m

who m th ey als o b ou gh t fi sh in g n et s. Id . at 2 9.

The Uni te d St a t e s mad e se ve ral tre at ie s wit h Ch ip pe wa In di an s du rin g th e

ni ne te en th cen tu ry , in cl ud in g two rel ev an t to th i s c a s e

. I n Ju ly 18 37

, ov er on e

th ou sa nd Ch ip pe wa In di a n s ga th ered at Fo rt Sn el li ng whi le th ei r ch ie fs ne go ti at ed

w ith W isc onsi n T er

ri tor ia l Gov ern or Hen ry Dod ge who rep res en te d th e Uni te d St at es

. Doc um en ts Rel at ed to th e Neg ot ia ti on of t h e Tr eat y of Ju ly 29

, 18 37

, rep rin te d in

Sat z, Ch ip pe wa Treat y Ri gh ts 13 1- 15 3, at 13 1 ("1 83 7 Treat y Jo ur na l" ). The Uni te d

St at es so ug ht to pu rch as e la nd eas t of th e Mi ss is si p p i R iv er in pr es en t da y cen tra l

Mi nn es ot a an d W is co ns in be cau se of i ts de si rab le pi ne ti m be r. Id. at 13 1- 32 , 1 40

.

Dur in g th es e ne go ti at io ns , th e Ch ip pe wa ch ie fs em ph as iz ed th e im

po rta nc e of

re s erv in g th ei r rig ht s to fis h, hu nt

, an d ga th er on th e la nd

, al so cal le d us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s. Acco rd in g to th e tre at y jou rn al

, Ma- gh e-g a-b o st at ed

, "Of al l th e co un try th at

we gr an t to y ou we wis h to ho ld on to a tre e whe re we ge t ou r li vi ng , & to res erv e th e

st ream s whe re we dr in k th e wate rs th at gi ve us li fe." 18 37 Treat y Jo ur na l at 14 2. The

se cret ary who reco rd ed th e pr oc eed in gs no te d th at h e tra ns cri be d th e st at em en t as

pr ov id ed by th e un de rq ua li fie d in te rp ret ers , bu t he "p res um e[d ] it to m ean th at th e

In d i a n s wis h to res erv e th e pr iv il eg e of hu nt in g & fis hi ng on th e la nd s an d m ak in g

su ga r fro m th e Map le ." I d

. F l a t mou th

, ch ie f of th e Pi ll ag er ba nd whi ch res id ed at

Leech Lak e, rei te rat ed th e im po rta nc e of res erv in g us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s on th e ced ed

la nd s:

-4

-My Fat he r. You r ch il dr en are wil li ng to le t y ou h a v e t h e i r l an ds

, bu t

t he y wis h to res erv e th e pr iv il eg e of m ak in g su ga r fro m th e tre es , a n d

g et ti ng th ei r li vi ng fro m th e Lak es an d Ri ve rs , as th ey ha ve do n e he ret of or e, an d of rem ai ni ng in th is Co un try.

. . . You kn ow we can no t li ve , de pr iv ed of ou r Lak es an d Ri ve rs ;

. . . we w i s h t o rem ai n up on th em , to ge t a l iv in g.

Id . at 1 45

.

Gov ern or Dod ge ag reed to res erv e th es e rig ht s fo r th e Ch ip pe wa In di an s. 18 37

Treat y Jo ur na l a t 14 6. Arti cl e 5 of th e 18 37 tre at y pr ov id es , "Th e pr iv il eg e of

hu nt in g, fis hi ng , an d ga th eri ng th e wil d ric e, up on th e la nd s, th e riv ers , an d th e la ke s

in cl ud ed in th e te rri to ry ced ed

, is gu aran ti ed to th e In di an s, du rin g th e pl eas ur e of th e

Pres id en t of th e Uni te d St at es ." Treat y wit h th e Ch i p p e w a , Ju ly 29

, 18 37

, art

. 5, 7

St at . 53 6 (" 18 37 Treat y ").

The area su rro un di ng th e Leech Lak e Res erv at io n was no t pa rt of th e te rri to ry
ced ed in 18 37

. See 18 37 Treat y , art

. 1. Tha t res erv at io n was e s ta bl is he d, an d

ad di ti on al te rri to ry in no rth ern Mi nn es ot a was ced ed

, in an 18 55 tre at y

. Treat y wit h

th e Ch ip p ewa, Feb ru ary 22

, 18 55

, art

. 1- 2, 10 St at

. 11 65 ("1 85 5 Treat y "). Sev eral

Ch ip pe wa ch ie fs ag ai n ga th ered at Fo rt Sn el li n g f or th e ne go ti at io ns

. Doc um en ts

Rel at ed to th e Neg ot ia ti on of th e Treat y of Feb ru ary 22

, 1 8 5 5 a t 1 ("1 85 5 Treat y

Jo ur na l), av ai la bl e at ht tp :/ /d ig it al .li br ary. wis c.ed u/ 17 11 .dl /Hi st or y .IT18 55 no 28 7
(la st vi si te d Ja n. 27

, 20 15 ). Co lo ne l Geo rg e Man y pe nn y , Co m

m i s s i o n e r of In di an

Affai rs , rep res en te d th e Uni te d St at es

. Id

. A c c o rd in g to th e tre at y jou rn al

, th e
Ch ip pe wa ch ie fs un de rs to od th e Uni te d St at es to ha ve a st rai gh tfo rward go al

. In th e

wor ds of Fl at m ou th

, ch ie f of th e Pi ll ag er ba nd res id in g ne ar Leech Lak e, "It ap pe ars

to m e th at I un de rs ta nd wha t y ou wa n t

, an d kn ow y ou r vi ews fro m th e few wor ds I

ha ve he ard y ou sp eak . You want lan d." Id. at 18

.

-5

-In co nt ras t to th e 18 37 ne go ti at io n s , t h e re is no reco rd of a di sc us si on of

us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s, an d th e tre at y is si le nt on th at su bjec t. See 18 55 Treat y Jo ur na l;

18 55 Treat y

. Res erv at io ns wit hi n t h e ced ed te rri to ry were ne go ti at ed

. Fl at m ou th

req ue st ed a res erv at io n "at Lak e W in n[ ib ig os hi sh ], Cas s Lak e, an d Leech Lak e" an d

th e tre at y th us es ta bl is he d th e Leech Lak e Res erv at io n. 18 55 Treat y Jo ur na l at 29 ;

18 55 Treat y , art . 2.

B.

In m or e rece nt y ears , co ur ts ha ve de te rm i n e d th at tre at y res erv at io ns of

us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s to t h e C h i p p e wa In di an s rem ai n in effe ct

. In Leech Lak e Ban d

of Ch ip pe wa In di an s v. Herb st

, 33 4 F. Su pp

. 10 01 (D. Mi nn

. 19 71 ), th e Leech Lak e

Ban d so ug ht a de cl arat or y jud gm en t th at t h e s t a t e of Mi nn es ot a co ul d no t reg ul at e
fis hi ng , hu nt in g, an d ga th eri ng wil d ric e wit hi n i t s res erv at io n. The Uni te d St at es , al so a pl ai nt iff

, co nt en de d "t ha t th e tre at y pr ot ect ed rig ht s to hu nt

, fis h, tra p an d

ga th er wil d ric e are pr op ert y rig ht s to be us ed in wha te v e r fas hi on th e In di an s, as

own ers , de si re, whe th er to eat

, cl ot he

, or se ll ." The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e
Ch ip pe wa In di an s' u su fru ct ua ry rig ht s ha d no t b een ter m in at ed by the 18 89 Nels on Act, an d i t en

joi ne d e nf

or cem en t o f st at e fi sh an d g am e la ws ag ai ns t In di an s o n t he

res erv at io n. Herb st

, 33 4 F. Su pp

. at 10 06

. The cas e en de d in a se tt le m en t in whi ch

t he Leech Lak e Ban d crea te d it s own co ns erv at io n co de an d ag reed to e n f o r c e t h e

co de in tri ba l co ur ts

.

A su bs eq ue nt cas e in vo lv in g an ot he r ba nd of Mi nn es ot a Ch ip pe wa I n d ia ns

m ad e it s way to th e S u p r e m e Co ur t. Mi nn es ot a v. Mi ll e Lacs Ban d of Ch ip pe wa

In di an s, 52 6 U.S. 17 2 (1 99 9)

. The st at e of Mi nn es ot a arg ue d th at t h e Mi ll e Lacs

Ban d ha d lo st th e hu nt in g, fis hi ng , an d ga th eri ng rig ht s gu aran te ed by th e 18 37 tre at y
th ro ug h an ex ecu ti ve or de r in 18 50

, th e 18 55 tre at y , an d Mi nn es ot a's ad m is si on in to

th e Uni on in 18 58

. Id

. at 17 5- 76

. Ana lyzin g th e hi st or ic al co nt ex t of th e 18 55 tre at y , th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e la c k o f di sc us si on of us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s in th e

-6

-ne go ti at io ns "s ug ge st [ed ] th at th e Ch ip pe wa di d no t un de rs ta nd th e pr op os ed Treat y

to ab ro ga te th ei r us uf

ru ct ua ry rig ht s as gu aran te ed by ot he r tre at ie s." Id

. at 19 8. The

Co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e rig ht s res erv ed un de r th e 18 37 tre at y ha d no t be en

e xt in gu is he d by th e su bs eq ue nt ex ecu ti ve or de r, 18 55 tre at y , or ad m is si on o f

Mi nn es ot a in to th e Uni on . Id. at 19 5, 2 02 , 20 8.

C.

In 20 10

, th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t of Natu ral Res ou r c e s b eg an "Op erat io n Sq ua reh oo k," a n in ve st ig at io n in to il le ga l sa le s of ga m e fis h, m os tl y wall ey e, in

n o r th ern Mi nn es ot a. Mi nn

. Dep t. of Natu ral Res

., "Op erat io n Sq ua reh o o k : Freq ue nt ly Ask ed Que st io ns ," av ai la bl e at ht tp :/ /www.d nr .st at e.m n.u s/ en fo rcem en t/

op _s qu ar eh oo k_ faq .ht m l (la st vi si te d Ja nu ary 27

, 20 15 ). St at e la w en fo rcem en t

wor ke d wit h t h e U

. S

. Fi sh an d W il dl ife Serv ic e an d au th or it ie s fro m th e Red Lak e

an d Leech Lak e In di an Res erv at io ns . Id . Th e in ve st ig at io n fo cu se d on al le ga ti on s

th at tri ba l m em

be rs cau gh t wall ey e on la ke s wit hi n th e res erv at io ns an d il le ga ll y so ld

th e fis h to no n In di an s at be lo w m ark et rat es

. Id

. Defen da nt s were am on g ov er th irt y

pe op le ch arg ed wit h cri m in al of fen se s as a res ul t of th e in ve st ig at i o n , t en of who m

were n am ed in fed eral co ur t i nd ic tm en ts . Id.

The fact ua l al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t d efen da nt s rel at e to fis hi ng wit hi n th e Leech

Lak e Res erv at io n. Thi s res erv at io n in cl ud es a nu m be r of la ke s, su ch as Leech Lak e,

Cas s Lak e, Lak e W in ni bi go sh is h, an d Si x Mi le Lak e. Bro wn, Reyes, an d Ly on s are

en ro ll ed m em

be rs of th e Leech Lak e Ban d, an d Tib be tt s is an en ro ll ed m em be r of th e

W hi te Eart h B a n d

. Bo th ba nd s are pa rt of th e Mi nn es ot a Ch ip pe wa Trib e, a 2

fed eral ly reco gn iz ed In di an tri be

. In di an Ent i t i es Rec og ni zed an d Eli gi bl e To

The go ve rn m en t ha s no t su gg es te d th at Tib be tt s's m em be rs hi p in th e W hi te 2

Eart h Ban d pr ov id es hi m di ffer en t fis hi ng rig ht s fro m th os e of th e ot he r de fen da nt s.

-7

-Rec ei ve Serv ic es Fro m th e Uni te d St at es Bu reau of In di an Affai r s , 7 9 Fed

. Reg

.

47 48 -5 2 (J an ua ry

29 , 20 14 ).

The in di ct m en ts al le ge th at de fen da nt s ha ve ta ke n fis h by gi ll ne t fo r

co m m erci al pu rp os es wit hi n th e Leech Lak e Re s erv at io n, vi ol at in g th e ba nd 's

co ns erv at io n co de

. Defen da nt s ha d th en so ld th e fis h to no n In di an s, so m e of who m

were al so in di ct ed

. Sect io n 22 .01 (2 ) of th e co ns erv at io n co de pr oh ib it s ta ki ng ga m e
fis h by gi ll ne t ot he r th an fo r pe rs on al us e, an d § 23 .01 pr oh ib it s ta ki ng fis h fo r

co m m erci al pu rp os es wit hi n th e res erv at io n, ex cep t fo r no n ga m e fis h whe n

au th or iz ed by a pe rm it fro m th e ba nd 's co ns erv at io n co m m it te e. Co ns erv at io n Co de

of th e Leech Lak e Ban d of Ch ip pe wa In di an s, §§ 22 .01 (2 ), 2 3

. 0 1

. W al le y e are

i n c l u d e d i n th e de fin it io n of "g am e fis h." Id

. § 11 .01 (1 0)

. Vio la ti on s of se ct io n s

22 .01 an d 23 .01 are pu ni sh ab le in tri ba l co ur t by a fin e of up to fiv e hu nd red do ll ars , im pr is on m en t fo r up to 18 0 da y s, bo th

, "o r an y ot he r pe na lt y as de em ed ap pr op ria te by the Ju dg e." Id . at § 51 .03 (1 ).

Defen da nt s were in di ct ed in th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a fo r vi ol at io ns of th e
fed eral Lacey Act, whi ch m ak es it u n l a w fu l to se ll fis h ta ke n "i n vi ol at io n of an y

In di an tri ba l la w." 16 U.S.C. § 33 72 (a)( 1)

. The in di ct m en ts al le ge d th at de fen da nt s

ha d s ol d fi sh wort h m or e th an $3 50 kn owi ng th e fi sh were t ak en in vi ol at io n o f th e
Leech Lak e co ns erv at io n co de

. Su ch a vi ol at io n is pu ni sh ab le by a fin e of up to
$2 0,0 00 , im

pr is on m en t fo r up to fiv e y ears , or b ot h. 1 6 U.S.C. § 33 73 (d )(1 ).

Defen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en ts

, arg ui ng th at t h e g o v e rn m en t

co ul d no t pr os ecu te th em fo r ex erci si ng th ei r rig ht to fis h on tri ba l wate rs

. The y
cl ai m ed t h a t t h e 18 37 tre at y res erv ed th is rig ht an d th at be cau se Co ng res s ha d no t

ab ro ga te d th ei r tre at y rig ht

, th e in di ct m en t m us t be di sm is se d. At a he ari n g on
de fen da nt s' m ot io ns , th e Uni te d St at es "ag ree[ d] th at th ere's no is su e as to whe th er th e

18 37 Ch ip pe wa Treat y ap pl ie s in th e Leech Lak e reg io n." The g ov ern m en t ar gu ed

-8

-ho wev er th at th e pr os ecu ti on di d no t im pl ic at e th e de fen da nt s' trea ty rig ht s bec au se

th e Lacey Act was a la w of g en eral ap pl ic ab il it y

.

W hi le co ns id eri ng th es e arg um en ts

, th e di st ric t co ur t ex am in ed th e 18 37 tre at y

an d it s hi st or ica l co nte xt, inclu di ng th e ne go ti at io ns be twee n th e Ch ip pe wa ch ie fs an d

Gov ern or Dod ge

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e st at em en ts m ad e in th os e ne go ti at io ns
de m on st rat ed th at all pa rti es un de rs to od th e 1 83 7 t reat y to res erv e "a b ro ad rig ht to

fis h as th ey ha d be en accu st om ed
— wit ho ut res tri ct io n." Thi s rig ht in cl ud ed se ll in g

th e fis h to m ak e a li v i n g a n d d i d no t li m it th e m et ho d us ed fo r cat ch in g th em

. The

de fen da nt s' al le ge d act io ns th eref or e fel l w i t h i n th e pr ot ect io ns of th e tre at y

. The

di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e Lacey Act di d no t ab ro ga te th e us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s

res erv ed un de r th e 18 37 tre at y

. Th e i nd ic tm en ts were di sm is se d, an d th e Uni te d

St at es ap pe al s.

II.

A.

The Uni te d St at es arg ue s th at pr os ecu ti ng de fen da nt s un de r th e Lacey Act do es

no t im pl ic at e us uf

ru ct ua ry rig ht s. In co ns id eri ng th at arg um en t we m us t ex am in e th e

sc op e o f th e ri gh ts pro te ct ed by t he 18 37 tre at y , a tre at y th e Uni te d S ta te s ad m it s i s

ap p l i c a b l e

. W he n se ek in g to de te rm in e th e m ean in g of In di an tre at ie s, "we lo ok

be y on d t he writ te n word s to th e la rg er co nt ex t t ha t fr am es th e Treat y , in cl ud in g t he

hi st or y of th e tr eat y , th e n eg ot ia ti on s, an d t he pra ct ic al co ns tru ct io n a do pt ed by t he

pa rti es ." Mi ll e La c s Ban d, 52 6 U.S. a t 19 6 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e in te rp ret su ch

tre at ie s li be ral ly, res ol vi ng un cert ai nt ie s in fav or of th e In di an s, an d we "g iv e effe ct

to th e te rm s as th e In di an s th em se lv es wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th em ." Id

. at 19 6, 20 0.

The wor di ng of th e 18 37 tre at y is br oa d, gu aran te ei ng a "p riv il eg e of hu nt in g,
fis hi ng , an d ga th eri ng th e wil d ric e, up on th e la nd s, th e riv ers , an d th e la ke s in cl ud ed

-9

-in th e te rri to r y c e d ed ." 18 37 Treat y , art

. 5. The hi st or ic al im po rta nc e of th es e

act iv it ie s in Ch ip pe wa li fe an d th e em ph as is of th e Ch ip pe wa ch ie fs on us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s du rin g th ei r ne go ti at io ns w i t h th e Uni te d St at es in di cat e th at th e In di an s
be li ev ed th ey were res erv in g un res tri ct ed rig ht s to hu nt

, fis h, an d ga th er th ro ug ho ut

a la rg e te rri to ry

. Thi s cas e pr es en ts no is su e of whe th er th e tre at y pr ot ect io n in cl ud es

th e us e of ne w te ch no lo gi es si nc e th e Ch ip pe wa us ed ne ts to cat ch fis h at th e ti m e th e

tre at y was m ad e.

The hi st or y su gg es ts th at th e Ch ip pe wa In di an s' ex erci se of th ei r us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s in cl ud ed se ll in g wha t th ey hu nt ed

, fis he d, o r ga th ered in or de r to m ak e a

m od es t li vi ng

. Oth er cas es co ns id eri ng th e 18 37 tre at y ha ve reac he d th e sa m e

co nc lu si on

. Mi ll e Lacs Ban d of Ch ip pe wa In di an s v. Mi nn es ot a, 86 1 F. Su pp

. 78 4,

83 8 (D. Mi nn

. 19 94 ); Lac Co ur te Orei ll es Ban d of Lak e Su pe rio r Ch ip pe wa In di an s

v. W is co ns in

, 65 3 F. Su pp

. 14 20

, 14 35 (W. D. W is

. 19 87 ). W he re "In di an s en ga ge d

in co m m erci al fis hi ng pr io r to an d at th e ti m e of th ei r tre at ie s, as was th e cas e in

. . . th e Great La k e s a rea, th e tre at ie s wil l be read to en ti tl e th em to fis h co m m erci al ly

to da y ." Uni te d St at es v. Di o n , 7 5 2 F.2 d 12 61 , 1 26 5 n.1 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (en ba nc )
(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, rev 'd in pa rt on ot he r gr ou nd s, 47 6 U.S. 73 4 (1 98 6)

. Mo reo ve r,

as rece nt ly as th e 19 70 s th e Uni te d St at es arg ue d in th e Herb st cas e th at us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s on th e Leech Lak e Res erv at io n in cl ud ed th e rig ht to se ll fis h. Thi s hi st or y , th e

te xt of th e 18 37 tre at y , an d ev id en ce of th e pa rti es ' un de rs ta nd in g of it sh ow th at th e

tre at y gu aran te ed a br oa d ri gh t t o fi sh th at in cl ud es rig ht to sel l t he m

.

On ap pe al

, th e Uni te d St at es at te m pt s to ret reat fro m it s earl ie r ad m is si on th at

th e r i g h t s res erv ed un de r th e 18 37 tre at y ap pl y on th e Leech Lak e Res erv at io n. It

ack no wled ge s th at th e th e Ch ip pe wa In di an s ha ve on res erv at io n rig ht s "i nh eren t in
[th e ba nd 's] so ve rei gn ty" an d ci te s Co he n's Han db oo k of F e de ral In di an Law §

18 .03 [1 ] at 11 58 -5 9. A s th is tre at is e no te s, "[e ]xcl us iv e on -res erv at io n hu nt in g,
fis hi ng , an d ga th eri ng rig ht s are im pl ie d from th e es ta bl is hm en t of a res erv at io n for

th e ex cl us iv e us e of a tri be ." I d

. Th e S u pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d th at "[a ]s a

-1 0-ge ne ral ru le

, In di an s en joy ex cl us iv e tre at y rig ht s to hu nt an d fis h on la nd s res erv ed

to th e m

. . . [an d] [t]he se rig ht s ne ed no t be ex pr es sl y m en ti on ed in th e tre at y ."

Uni te d St at es v. Dio n, 47 6 U.S. 73 4, 73 8 (1 98 6)

. In di vi du al s m ay as se rt th es e rig ht s

"u nl es s [th ey ] were cl e a r l y rel in qu is he d by tre at y or ha ve be en m od ifi ed by

Co ng res s." Id.

The Uni te d St at es su gg es ts no reas on why th e rig ht to ne t and se ll fis h wou ld

no t be pa rt of th e us uf

ru ct ua ry rig ht s res erv ed by th e es ta bl is hm en t of th e Leech Lak e

Res erv at io n in th e 18 55 tre at y

. The co nt ex t of th e 18 55 tre at y es ta bl is hi ng th e Leech

Lak e Res erv at io n in di cat es th at th is "g en eral ru le " ap pl ie s. A s t h e Su pr em e Co ur t

no te d in Mi nn es ot a v. Mil le Lacs Ban d, th e si le nc e reg ard in g us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s in

th e 18 55 tre at y an d th e ne go ti a t i o ns le ad in g up to it su gg es t th at th e Ch ip pe wa

In di an s di d no t be li ev e th ey were rel in qu is h i n g s u c h r i g ht s. 52 6 U.S. at 19 8.

His to ric al so ur ces in di cat e th at th e Ch ip pe wa pr act ice d suc h act iv it ie s du rin g th e ti m e

pe rio d whe n th e res erv at io n was es ta bl is he d. Eve n if th e 18 37 tre at y do es no t ap pl y , th e rig ht s it pr ot ect s are rel ev an t be cau se in th is pa rti cu la r cas e th e Ch ip pe wa wou ld

ha ve un de rs to od si m il ar br oa d rig ht s to ap pl y o n th e Leech Lak e Res erv at io n. W e

th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e ex cl us iv e on res erv at io n fis hi ng rig ht s of th e Ch ip pe wa

In di an s p ro te ct th e ri gh ts to fis h a nd to sel l fi sh

.

B.

The Uni te d St at es rai se s se ve ra l a r g u m en ts why th e pr os ecu ti on do es no t

co nf li ct wit h Ch ip pe wa fis hi ng rig ht s res erv ed un de r th e 18 37 tre at y or im pl i e d by

th e es ta bl is hm en t of th e Leech Lak e Res erv a t i o n in th e 18 55 tre at y

. Fi rs t, th e

go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th at su ch rig ht is on e th at m ay be as se rte d by a ba nd or tri be

, bu t no t by an in di vi du al

. In s up po rt o f th is arg um en t, the go ve rn m en t cit es a Ten th

Ci rcu it cas e fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e rig ht as se rte d in co ur t pr oc eed in gs is "t he
rig ht of an in di vi du al of th e co m m un it y ," pa rt of th e "t rib al r ig ht to hu nt or fis h."

-1 1-Uni te d S ta te s v . Fox , 57 3 F .3d 10 50 , 10 53 -5 4 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

It is well se t t l e d

, h o wev er, th at an in di vi du al In di an m ay as se rt us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s in a cri m in al pr os ecu ti on

. Fo r ex am pl e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed in Uni te d

St at es v. Dio n th at hu nt in g an d fis hi ng "t reat y rig ht s can be a s s e r t e d b y D io n as an

in di vi du al m em

be r of th e Trib e." 47 6 U.S. at 73 8 n.4

. Eva lu at in g us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s

in Uni te d St at es v. W in an s, th e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at whi le "t he ne go t i a t i o n s were
wit h th e tri be ," t r e a t ie s "re se rv ed rig ht s, ho wev er, to ev ery in di vi du al In di an , as

th ou gh na m ed th erei n." 19 8 U.S. at 38 1.

Fo x do es no t he lp th e g o v e r n men t's arg um en t in th is cas e. The de fen da nt in

Fo x, a Nav ajo In di an an d a co nv ic te d fel on , was pr os ecu te d un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

fo r po ss es si ng a sh ot gu n an d rif le on th e Nav ajo Res erv at io n, ev en th ou gh he cl ai m ed

to po ss es s th e gu ns so le ly fo r hu nt in g. 57 3 F.3 d at 10 51

. Alt ho ug h th e Ten th Ci rcu it

was "s ke pt ic al of th e [g ov ern m en t's ] po si ti on th at hu nt in g rig ht s gu aran te ed by tre at y

on ly be ne fit th e tri be co ll ect iv el y , as op po se d to it s in di vi du al m em be rs ," id

. at 10 53

, it d e ci de d th at Fo x was in el ig ib le to as se rt a tre at y hu nt in g rig ht be cau se th e tre at y

pr ov id ed th at Nav ajo In di an s who co m m it cri m es m ay be "t rie d [b y th e Uni te d St at es ]

an d p un is he d a cco rd in g t o i ts laws ." Id . a t 10 54 -5 5. Part of Fo x's pu ni sh m en t was

th e lo ss of th e pr iv il eg e to po ss es s fir earm s. Id

. The p r es en t cas e is eas il y
di st in gu is ha bl e, fo r de fen da nt s he re are no t su bjec t to a ny pr io r fed eral cri m in al

pu ni sh m en t p ro hi bi ti ng th e u se of g il l n et s fo r co m m erci al fis hi ng

.

The Uni te d St at es al so arg ue s th at th is Lacey Act pr os ecu ti on su pp or ts rat he r

th an un de rm in es tri ba l so ve rei gn ty be cau se it is pr ed ic at ed on a vi ol at io n of th e Leech

Lak e Ban d's co ns erv at io n co de

. Si nc e de fen da nt s al le ge dl y fis he d in way s pr oh ib it ed
by th e ba nd

, us uf

ru ct ua ry rig ht s do no t pr ot ect th em , th e go ve rn m en t co nt en ds

. The

go ve rn m en t do es no t, an d can no t, ci te an y au th or it y fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e Leech

Lak e Ban d's fis hi ng reg ul at io ns ha ve al te red th e sc op e of rig ht s pr ot ect ed in th e 18 37

tre at y or by t he es ta bl is hm en t of th e res erv at io n in th e 1 85 5 t reat y . W he th er or no t

-1 2-a Lacey Act pr os ecu ti on in th is cas e co ul d pr om ot e tri ba l so ve rei gn ty, a tri be do es no t

ab ro g a t e it s own rig ht s by el ect in g to reg ul at e th os e rig ht s. Trib al fis hi ng la ws

en fo rcea bl e in tri ba l co ur t do no t ch an ge th e sc op e of tre at y pr ot ect io ns whi ch tri ba l

m em be rs m ay ass ert as a de fen se to pro se cu ti on by the Uni te d S ta te s.

Fi na ll y , th e Uni te d St at es al so rel ie s on a Nin th Ci rcu it cas e ho l d i ng th at

In di an s co ul d be pr os ecu te d fo r ta ki ng fis h wit hi n In di an Co un try in v i o l a t i on of

tri ba l reg ul at io ns

. Uni te d St at es v. So ha pp y , 77 0 F.2 d 81 6 (9 th Ci r. 19 85 ). Th e

Nin th Ci rcu it de sc rib ed th e "cr uc ia l is su e" th ere as "wh et he r th e tre at ie s res erv ed to

th e tri be s excl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er en fo rcem en t o f tri ba l fis hi ng la w ag ai ns t

In di an s." Id

. at 81 8 (em

ph as is in or ig in al ). The co ur t de ci de d th at a tre at y w h i ch

res erv ed th e "ri gh t to ta ke fis h at al l 'us ua l an d accu st om ed pl aces ' was no t ex cl us iv e
bu t was to be sh ared 'in co m m on wit h ci ti zen s o f t h e Terri to ry .'" Id . a t 81 9. The re

was no la ng ua ge in th e tre at y "p ur po rti ng to ex em

pt In di an s fro m th e la ws of ge ne ral

ap pl ic ab il it y th ro ug ho ut th e Uni te d St at es ." Id

. at 82 0 (qu ot at io n om it te d)

. In su ch

ci rcu m st an ces , th e Nin th Ci rcu it co n c l ud ed

, co nc ur ren t fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er
fis hi ng di d n ot vi ol at e tr eat y rig ht s. Id . at 8 19 -2 0.

An affi rm an ce of th e di st ric t co ur t in th is cas e do es no t co nf li ct wit h So ha pp y
be cau se th at cas e ev al ua te d rig ht s un de r a pa rti cu la r tre at y wit h m at eri al ly di ffer en t

la ng ua ge an d pa rti es

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in st ru ct ed co ur ts to an al y ze th e hi st or y ,
pu rp os e, an d ne go ti at io ns of th e tre at y at is su e in a pa rti cu la r cas e. See Mi ll e Lac s

Ban d, 52 6 U.S. at 20 2. The Nin th Ci rcu it de te rm in ed in So ha pp y th at a rig ht to ta ke

fis h "i n co m

m on wit h ci ti zen s of th e Terri to ry " was no t an ex cl us iv e rig ht

. 77 0 F.2 d

at 81 9. In co nt ras t, th e 18 37 tre at y ap pl ic ab le he re res erv es br oa d us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s

w i t h no su ch li m it in g la ng ua ge , an d th e on res erv at io n rig ht s im pl ie d in th e 1 8 5 5

tre at y are ex cl us iv e. The se are cri ti cal di ffer en ces whi ch di st in gu is h th e cas e be fo re

ou r co ur t.

-1 3-The Uni te d St at es no ne th el es s ur ge s th at it s Lacey Act pr os ecu ti on s are va li d

be cau s e t h e t r e at y do es no t "ex em pt In di an s fro m th e la ws of ge ne ral ap pl ic ab il it y
th ro ug ho ut th e Uni te d St at es ." So ha pp y , 7 70 F.2 d at 82 0. Beca us e th e act iv it y fo r

w h i c h d e f

en da nt s were pr os ecu te d (s el li ng fis h th ey cau gh t on th e Leech Lak e

Res erv at io n) fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e Ch ip pe wa In di an s' ex cl us iv e us uf ru ct ua ry rig ht s, we ne ed no t no w co ns id er whe th er th e 18 37 tre at y ex e mp t e d t he Ch ip pe wa

fro m ot he r la ws of ge ne ral ap pl ic ab il it y

. Thi s co nc lu si on is co ns is t e nt wit h ou r
de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . W hi te , 50 8 F .2d 45 3 (8 th Cir . 19 74 ).

In W hi te

, we affi rm ed th e di sm is sa l of an in di ct m en t ag ai ns t a m em be r of th e
Red Lak e Ban d fo r vi ol at in g th e Eag le Pro te ct io n Act, 16 U

. S

. C

. § 6 68 (a), by

sh oo ti ng a t a b a l d eag le on th e res erv at io n. Id

. at 45 4. W e st at ed th ere th at "ar eas

tra di ti on al ly le ft to tri ba l se lf- go ve rn m en t, th os e m os t o f te n th e su bjec t of tre at ie s,

ha ve en joy ed an ex cep ti on fro m th e ge ne ral ru le th a t co ng res si on al en act m en ts

, in

te rm s a p p l yi n g to al l pe rs on s, in cl ud es In di an s an d th ei r pr op ert y in te res ts ." Id

. at

45 5. Afte r de te rm in in g th at th e Red Lak e Ban d ha d res erv ed hu nt in g rig ht s, th e co ur t

co nt in ue d, "To affe ct th os e rig ht s, the n, by 16 U.S.C. § 66 8, it was inc um be nt up on

Co ng res s to ex pr es sl y ab ro ga te or m od ify t he sp iri t of th e rel at io n s h i p b et ween th e
Uni te d St at es a n d R e d Lak e Ch ip pe wa In di an s on th ei r na ti ve res erv at io n." Id

. at

45 7- 58

. As Co ng res s ha d no t so act ed

, th e co ur t c o n c l u de d, th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

pr op erl y di sm is se d t he in di ct m en t. Id . at 4 58 -5 9.

Oth er tre at y rig ht s de ci si on s sh ow th at W hi te fu rn is he s th e co rrec t an al y si s fo r

th e is su es pr es en te d he re. In Uni te d St at es v. Dio n whi ch was de ci de d aft er So ha pp y , th e Su pr em e Co ur t al so em pl oyed an ab ro ga ti on an al y si s whe n de te rm in in g whe th er

tre at y rig ht s pr ecl ud ed pr os ecu ti on of a Y an kt on Si ou x In di an un de r th e Eag le

Pro te ct io n Act. 4 7 6 U.S. at 73 7- 39

. Late r in Uni te d St at es v. Got ch ni k, we ag ai n

ev al ua te d th e sc op e of tre at y pr ot ect io ns an d whe th er Co ng res s ab ro ga te d th os e

pr ot ect io ns whe n d e te rm in in g th at tre at y fis hi ng rig ht s di d no t pr ecl ud e fed eral

-1 4-pr ose cuti on fo r us in g m ot or ve hi cl es in th e Bo un da ry W at ers Can oe Area W il de rn ess.

22 2 F .3d 50 6, 5 08 -1 1 (8 th Cir . 20 00 ).

The Uni te d St at es po in ts ou t th at two of ou r cas es ha ve ci te d So ha pp y

. Uni te d

St at es v. St on e, 11 2 F.3 d 97 1, 97 3- 74 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ); Uni te d St at es v. Bi g Eag le

, 88 1

F.2 d 53 9, 54 0 n.1 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ). In ne it he r of th es e cas es is it cl ear th at th e In di an
de fen da nt s were pr os ecu te d fo r act io ns th at fel l wit hi n th ei r tre at y hu nt in g an d fis hi ng rig ht s. St on e was ch arg ed w i t h vi ol at in g th e Airb or ne Hun ti ng Act wit hi n In di an

co un try by us in g a pl an e to dr iv e a m oo se to ward hu nt ers on th e gr ou nd

. St on e, 11 2

F.3 d at 97 2. The hu nt ers were no t pro se cu te d. See id

. Bi g Eag le was ch arg ed wit h

ta ki ng fis h on th e res erv at io n of a tri be to whi ch he di d no t be lo ng in vi ol at io n of th at

tri be 's ru le s. Bi g Eag le

, 88 1 F.2 d at 53 9- 40

. Neit he r de ci si on co ns id ered th e hi st or y ,
pu rp os e, an d ne go ti at io ns of a tre at y cl ai m ed to pr ot ect th e de fen da nt 's act io ns

. See

St on e, 11 2 F.3 d at 97 3- 74 ; Bi g Eag le

, 88 1 F.2 d at 54 0. Mo reo ve r, ev en if th es e cas es

were to co nf

li c t wit h W hi te

, we wou ld be ob li ga te d to fo ll ow W hi te as th e earl ie st

cas e on po in t. Mad er v. Uni te d St at es , 65 4 F.3 d 79 4, 80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ).

Afte r gi vi ng fu ll co ns id erat io n to th e arg um en ts by th e U n i t e d St at es , we

co nc lu de th at ap pe ll ees are en ti tl ed to as se rt th e Ch ip pe wa In di an s' fis hi ng rig ht s an d

th at th is pro se cu ti on un de r th e Lacey Act co nf li ct s wi th th os e ri gh ts

.

III.

Alt ho ug h Co ng res s m ay ab ro ga te In dia n tr ea ty righ ts

, it m

us t m ak e it s in te nt io n

to do so "cl ear an d pl ai n." Dio n, 47 6 U.S. at 73 8. The re m us t be "cl ear ev id en ce th at

Co ng res s act ua ll y co ns id ered a co nf li ct be twee n it s in te nd ed act io n on th e on e ha nd

an d In di an tre at y rig ht s on th e ot he r, an d ch os e to res ol ve th at co nf li ct by ab ro ga ti ng

th e tre at y ." Id

. at 74 0. The Uni t e d S t a t e s do es no t arg ue th at Co ng res s ab ro ga te d

Ch ip pe wa fis hi ng r i g h ts th ro ug h th e Lacey Act. Tha t Act it se lf m ak es cl ear th at

Co ng res s d id no t

in te nd to ab ro ga te Ind ia n ri gh ts : i t p ro vi de s t ha t

-1 5-[n ]oth in g in th is ch ap te r sh al l b e co ns tru ed as

. . . rep eal in g,

su pe rs ed in g, or m od ifyin g an y rig ht

, pr iv il eg e, o r im m un it y gr an te d,

res erv ed

, or es ta bl is he d pu rs ua nt to tre at y , st at ut e, or ex ecu ti ve or de r
pe rta in in g t o a ny Ind ia n t rib e, ba nd , or c om m un it y

.

16 U.S.C. § 33 78 (c)( 2)

. Co ng res s ha s th us no t ab ro ga t e d th e rig ht s as se rte d by

de fen da nt s.

IV.

W e co nc lu de th at th e hi st or ic fis hi ng rig ht s of th e Ch ip pe wa In di an s ba r th is

pr os ecu ti on of de fen da nt s fo r ta ki ng fis h wit hi n th e Le e c h Lak e Res erv at io n an d

se ll in g t he m . The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-