Opinion ID: 1310725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Federal Recognition of the Samish Tribe; Treaty Tribes Denied Intervention to Oppose Recognition

Text: The Samish Tribe first sought federal recognition in 1972, but no action was taken on the application. In 1978, the Department of the Interior adopted rules establishing a process for tribes to achieve federal recognition, known in the regulations as federal acknowledgment. Procedures for Establishing That an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe, 43 Fed.Reg. 39,361, 39,363 (Sept. 5, 1978). [5] The Samish Tribe then filed a revised application. On February 5, 1987, the Department of the Interior published a Final Determination That the Samish Indian Tribe Does Not Exist as an Indian Tribe. 52 Fed. Reg. 3709. A major reason for the denial was that the Tribe had failed to meet two mandatory requirements for recognition: (1) that a substantial portion of the petitioning group inhabits a specific area or lives in a community viewed as American Indian and distinct from other populations in the area, and that its members are descendants of an Indian tribe which historically inhabited a specific area; and (2) that the petitioner has maintained tribal political influence or other authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present. 43 Fed.Reg. at 39,363. [6] The Department's decision was made on the papers; the regulation did not provide for a hearing and gave the applicant no right to see the submissions of others. The Samish Tribe then brought an action in district court challenging the administrative denial of recognition. The Tulalip Tribes, which had treaty fishing rights, attempted to intervene on the ground that recognition of the Samish Tribe would threaten the Tulalips' treaty fishing rights. See Greene I, 996 F.2d at 975. The district court ruled that the Samish Tribe could not, in its challenge to denial of recognition, relitigate Washington II 's denial of treaty fishing rights. See id. The district court then denied intervention, and the Tulalip Tribes appealed. See id. at 976. We upheld the denial of intervention, rejecting the Tulalips' argument that the factual inquiries underlying recognition were so similar to the inquiries underlying treaty rights that recognition was bound to affect treaty rights. We stated: We recognize that the two inquiries are similar. Yet each determination serves a different legal purpose and has an independent legal effect. Federal recognition is not a threshold condition a tribe must establish to fish under the Treaty of Point Elliott. . . . Similarly, the Samish need not assert treaty fishing rights to gain federal recognition.. . . Even if they obtain federal tribal status, the Samish would still have to confront the decisions in Washington I and II before they could claim fishing rights. Federal recognition does not self-execute treaty rights claims. Id. at 976-77. Meanwhile, the district court had ruled that the Samish had been denied due process in the administrative proceeding, and remanded for a formal adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Greene v. Lujan, No. C89-645Z, 1992 WL 533059 (W.D.Wash. Feb. 25, 1992). The Secretary of the Interior appealed that decision. The Tulalip Tribes, as amici curiae, again argued that recognition of the Samish was barred by Washington II. We rejected that contention and affirmed the district court in Greene II. We stated: Our decision in Greene v. United States, 996 F.2d 973 (9th Cir.1993), can leave no serious doubt that our court regards the issues of tribal treaty status and federal acknowledgment as fundamentally different. We there held that the Tulalip Tribe was not entitled to intervene in this very litigation. We did so because the Tulalip's interest in preventing the Samish from gaining treaty fishing rights was not affected by this litigation, involving federal tribal recognition or, as it is termed in the applicable regulation, acknowledgment. Greene II, 64 F.3d at 1270. We further observed that we had denied intervention by the Tulalip Tribes in Greene I because we disagreed with their position that Samish success in the [recognition case] would undermine the finality of the Washington II decision. Id. at 1271. After further consideration of the merits, we then upheld the district court's ruling that due process entitled the Samish Tribe to a hearing on its application for recognition. Id. at 1275. In administrative proceedings that followed, an Administrative Law Judge held that the Samish Tribe was entitled to federal recognition. The judge included several findings tracing the Samish Tribe's history which supported the mandatory recognition criteria that: (1) the group has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900, id. § 83.7(a); (2) the group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present, id. § 83.7(b); (3) the tribe has maintained political influence or authority over its members, id. § 83.7(c); and (4) [t]he petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity, 25 C.F.R. § 83.7(e). See Greene III, 943 F.Supp. at 1283-84. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior, however, after an ex parte conference with a government lawyer and expert witness, approved the recognition of the Samish Tribe but deleted several of the crucial findings of the Administrative Law Judge underlying the determination that the Samish had met the regulatory requirements. See id. at 1282-83; Samish Recognition, 61 Fed. Reg. at 15,825. The Samish Tribe thereupon returned to district court, objecting to the deletion of the Administrative Law Judge's findings. The district court held the ex parte contacts to be unlawful, and reinstated the disputed findings of the Administrative Law Judge. Greene III, 943 F.Supp. at 1288-89. [7]