Opinion ID: 1310725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Initial Denial of Samish Tribe Treaty Status

Text: Shortly thereafter, the Samish Tribe intervened in the Washington litigation and sought to establish its entitlement to treaty fishing rights. At that time, the Samish Tribe was not federally recognized. [3] The district court denied relief. Washington II, 476 F.Supp. at 1106. The district court found that the Samish Indians, then numbering between 98 and 150 persons, were a party to the Treaty of Point Elliott. Id. at 1105-06. They were not named in the Treaty, but were signed for by the Lummi Tribe representative. Id. at 1106. The court further found: Pursuant to the treaty most of the Samish people initially moved to the Lummi Reservation. Later others moved to the Swinomish Reservation. The present-day Lummi and Swinomish Reservation tribes include descendants of the 1855 Samish Indians. Id. The court held, however, that [t]he Intervenor Samish Tribe is not an entity that is descended from any of the tribal entities that were signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott. Id. The court noted the Samish's lack of federal recognition and further stated: The Intervenor's membership roll contains 549 persons many of whom are of only 1/16th degree Indian blood. Two have only 1/32nd Samish blood. The tribe does not prohibit dual membership and at least one member is an officer of the Lummi Tribe. [] The members of the Intervenor Samish Tribe and their ancestors do not and have not lived as a continuous separate, distinct and cohesive Indian cultural or political community. The present members have no common bond of residence or association other than such association as is attributable to the fact of their voluntary affiliation with the Intervenor entity. Id. (internal citations omitted). The court accordingly concluded that the Samish Tribe was not at this time a treaty tribe in the political sense within the meaning of Washington I and did not presently hold[ ] for itself or its members fishing rights secured by any of the Stevens treaties identified in [ Washington I ]. Id. at 1111. The district court also concluded that [o]nly tribes recognized as Indian political bodies by the United States may possess and exercise the tribal fishing rights secured and protected by the treaties of the United States. Id. This last conclusion was surprising because it was wholly inconsistent with the district court's ruling in Washington I that two unrecognized tribes were entitled to treaty fishing rights. 384 F.Supp. at 378-79, 406. On appeal, we affirmed the denial of treaty rights. United States v. Washington, 641 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir.1981). We pointed out the district court's error in stating that federal recognition is a prerequisite to the enjoyment of treaty rights: [t]his conclusion is clearly contrary to our prior holding [affirming Washington I ] and is foreclosed by well-settled precedent. Id. at 1371. We nevertheless held that the district court's factual findings supported the denial of relief: [T]he district court specifically found that the appellants had not functioned since treaty times as continuous separate, distinct and cohesive Indian cultural or political communit[ies]. After close scrutiny, we conclude that the evidence supports this finding of fact. Although the appellants now have constitutions and formal governments, the governments have not controlled the lives of the members. Nor have the appellants clearly established the continuous informal cultural influence they concede is required. Id. at 1373 (internal citation omitted) (second alteration in original). [4]