Opinion ID: 4512812
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Law Underlying the Easement Agreement

Text: There are three sources of federal law underlying the Easement Agreement: federal common law, the Treaty of Point Elliott, and the Indian Right of Way Act. Under federal common law, Indian tribes have the right to exclude non-Indians and non-tribal members from their lands, and the commensurate right to grant admission to, or use of, their lands on such terms as the tribes see fit to impose. “[A] hallmark of Indian sovereignty is the power to exclude non-Indians from Indian lands . . . .” Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 141 (1982); Window Rock Unified Sch. Dist. v. Reeves, 861 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2017), as amended (Aug. 3, 2017) (“The Supreme Court has long recognized that Indian tribes have sovereign powers, including the power to exclude non-tribal members from tribal land.”), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 648 (2018). Tribes possess inherent sovereign authority “[t]o determine who may enter the reservation; to define the conditions upon which they may enter; to prescribe rules of conduct; [and] to expel 22 SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL CMTY. V. BNSF those who enter the reservation without proper authority.” Quechan Tribe of Indians v. Rowe, 531 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Merrion, 455 U.S. at 144 (“When a tribe grants a non-Indian the right to be on Indian land, the tribe agrees not to exercise its ultimate power to oust the nonIndian as long as the non-Indian complies with the initial conditions of entry.”). Tribes have a federal common law right to sue to protect their possessory interests in their lands. See County of Oneida, 470 U.S. at 235–36 (“In keeping with these well-established principles, we hold that the Oneidas can maintain this action for violation of their possessory rights based on federal common law.”). The Treaty of Point Elliott was one of many treaties signed by the federal government in 1854 and 1855 with the tribes surrounding Puget Sound, under which tribes were guaranteed reservation lands for their exclusive use. See Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 662 (1979) (“Fishing Vessel”) (“[C]ertain relatively small parcels of land were reserved for their exclusive use.”). The Treaty specifically provides that the Tribe has a right to exclude non-Indians from the Reservation. See Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927, at Art. II (1859). The Treaty is “self-enforcing.” See Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S at 693 n.33 (“The State has . . . argued that absent congressional legislation the treaties involved here are not enforceable. This argument flies directly in the face of Art. XIII of the treaties . . . .”); see also Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 513 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“The Supreme Court has held that the Treaty of Point No Point and similar treaties are ‘self-enforcing’ and thus do not require implementing legislation to form the basis of a lawsuit.”). Under long-established principles of federal Indian law, treaties are enforceable in equity against third SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL CMTY. V. BNSF 23 parties. See, e.g., United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 377 (1905); United States v. Washington, 853 F.3d 946, 961 (9th Cir. 2017); Skokomish Indian Tribe, 410 F.3d at 513; United States v. Washington, 157 F.3d 630, 657 (9th Cir. 1998). The Indian Right of Way Act provides that the “Secretary of the Interior . . . is empowered to grant rights-of-way for all purposes, subject to such conditions as he may prescribe, over and across any lands . . . held in trust by the United States for . . . Indian tribes . . . .” 25 U.S.C. § 323. “No grant of a rightof-way over and across any lands belonging to a tribe organized under the Act of June 18, 1934 [the Indian Reorganization Act] . . . shall be made without the consent of proper tribal officials.” Id. at § 324. It is undisputed that the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community was organized under the Indian Reorganization Act. Regulations under the Indian Right of Way Act provide that any unauthorized use of an existing right-of-way constitutes trespass for which a Tribe may “pursue any available remedies under applicable law, including applicable tribal law.” 25 C.F.R. § 169.413; see also 25 C.F.R. § 169.401 (“Any . . . violation of the right-ofway grant or right-of-way document, including but not limited to encroachments beyond the defined boundaries, accidental, willful, and/or incidental trespass, unauthorized new construction, changes in use not permitted in the grant, and late or insufficient payment may result in enforcement actions including, but not limited to, cancellation of the grant.”).