Court Opinion

ID: 9891215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 20:01:11.261168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:39.469650
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
        FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE                   No. 22-35140
SHOSHONE NATION, a federally
recognized Indian tribe on its own       D.C. No. 4:21-cv-
behalf and as parens patriae on behalf     00252-DCN
of its members,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,          OPINION
  v.

GREG WOOTEN, Department of Fish
and Game Enforcement Bureau Chief;
ED SCHRIEVER, Department of Fish
and Game Director; DOES, 1-10,

               Defendants-Appellees,

       Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the District of Idaho
       David C. Nye, Chief District Judge, Presiding

         Argued and Submitted February 6, 2023
                   Portland, Oregon

                  Filed October 17, 2023

   Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr., Danielle J. Forrest, and
            Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges.
                  Opinion by Judge Sung
2   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

                          SUMMARY *

                         Treaties/Tribes

    The panel reversed the district court’s judgment
dismissing for failure to state a claim the Northwestern Band
of the Shoshone Nation’s complaint against Idaho state
officials, and remanded, in a case concerning the
interpretation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger between the
United States and several bands of the Shoshone and
Bannock Tribes, including the Shoshone’s Northwestern
Band.
    Under the Treaty, the affiliated Shoshone and Bannock
Tribes ceded most of their territory to the United States. At
the same time, the Tribes expressly reserved their right to
hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States.
    Idaho officials contend that the Treaty conditions the
reserved hunting right on permanent residence on a
designated reservation, and that Northwestern Band
members may not exercise the Tribes’ treaty-reserved
hunting right because the Northwest Band does not reside on
a designated reservation.
    Disagreeing, the panel held that the Treaty’s terms,
which must be read in context and construed as they would
naturally be understood by the Tribes, plainly do not
condition exercise of the reserved hunting right on the
Northwestern Band relocating to a reservation.

*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN      3

    Because the district court did not reach the Idaho
officials’ alternative arguments regarding political cohesion
and necessary joinder, the panel remanded the case for the
district court to address those issues in the first instance.

                        COUNSEL

Ryan Frazier (argued), Kirton and McConkie, Salt Lake
City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Owen Moroney (argued) and Kathleen Trever, Deputy
Attorneys General; Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney
General; Darrell Early, Chief of Natural Resources; Idaho
Attorney General’s Office, Boise, Idaho, for Defendants-
Appellees.
Mary G. Sprague (argued), William B. Lazarus, and Rachel
Heron, Attorneys; Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General;
Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Samuel Ennis,
Attorney, United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States of
America.
Lance Sorenson (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Utah
Attorney General’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah; Melissa A.
Holyoak, Senior Counsel; Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney
General; Utah Attorney General’s Office, Salt Lake City,
Utah; for Amicus Curiae State of Utah.
Jack W. Fiander, Towtnuk Law Offices LTD, Sacred
Ground Legal Services, Inc., Yakima, Washington, for
Amicus Curiae Sacred Ground Legal Services.
William F. Bacon, General Counsel, Shoshone Bannock
4   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

Tribes, Trial Attorney’s Office, Fort Hall, Idaho, for Amicus
Curiae Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation.

                         OPINION

SUNG, Circuit Judge:

    In this case, we must interpret the 1868 Treaty of Fort
Bridger (the “Treaty”) between the United States and several
bands of the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, including the
Shoshone’s Northwestern Band. Under the Treaty, the
affiliated Shoshone and Bannock Tribes ceded most of their
territory to the United States. See Treaty with the Eastern
Band Shoshoni and Bannock, art. II, July 3, 1868, 15 Stat.
673. At the same time, the Tribes expressly reserved their
right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States. Id. at
art. IV. It is undisputed that the Tribes’ reserved hunting
right remains valid.
    Idaho officials, however, contend that the Treaty
conditions the reserved hunting right on permanent
residence on a designated reservation. Under the Idaho
officials’ interpretation, Northwestern Band members may
not exercise the Tribes’ treaty-reserved hunting right
because the Northwestern Band does not reside on a
designated reservation. We disagree. The Treaty’s terms,
which we must read in context and construe as they would
naturally be understood by the Tribes, plainly do not
condition exercise of the reserved hunting right on the
Northwestern Band relocating to a reservation.
    NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN         5

                               I.
    The Shoshone, “from time immemorial, roamed over,
lived upon, occupied, and used” over 80 million acres of
territory in present-day Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and
Wyoming. Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v.
United States, 95 Ct. Cl. 642, 644 (1942), aff’d, 324 U.S. 335
(1945) (“Northwestern Bands I”). The Shoshone relied on
hunting, fishing, and gathering practices for their support
and livelihood. Id. at 644–45. In the 1860s, the Shoshone
Tribe comprised at least fourteen regional bands, including
the Northwestern Band. Id. at 644. The Shoshone Tribe was
also affiliated with the Bannock Tribe. Id.
    By 1849, the westward migration and settlement of
European Americans had caused substantial losses to game
and other natural resources on which the Shoshone depended
for survival. Id. at 646–47. Many Shoshone were “reduced
to a condition of practical starvation[.]” Id. at 646. Around
1859, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs reported that some
Shoshone were occasionally attacking emigrant trains
crossing their territory, in part because “of their destitute and
desperate condition,” and in part because of “the conduct of
certain unscrupulous white men.” Id. at 646–49.
    In January 1863, the colonel commanding the Military
District of Utah attacked a Shoshone encampment at Bear
River, killing hundreds of Shoshone and nearly
exterminating one of the bands. Id. at 653. By June of that
year, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs directed the
Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Territory of Utah,
James Duane Doty, to meet with the Shoshone so that,
according to Commissioner Doty, “some arrangement may
be made by which they can with satisfaction return to their
hunting grounds, and upon terms which shall secure peace
6   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

hereafter, safety to the emigrants and travellers [sic], and
relieve the department from the expense now being
incurred.” See id. at 656–57. Between July and October
1863, the United States entered into five treaties of “peace
and amity” with different Shoshone bands: the Eastern
Shoshone Treaty, the Northwestern Shoshone Treaty, the
Western Shoshone Treaty, the Shoshonee-Goship Treaty,
and the Mixed Bands Treaty. Id. at 657–68; Northwestern
Bands of Shoshone Indians v. U.S., 324 U.S. 335, 341–42
(1945) (“Northwestern Bands II”). Under these treaties, the
United States agreed to pay annuities to the Shoshone Bands
to secure peace. Northwestern Bands II, 324 U.S. at 346.
    In 1868, the United States, certain Shoshone bands, and
the affiliated Bannock Tribe entered into the Treaty of Fort
Bridger, the treaty at issue in this case. The main chief of the
Shoshone, Chief Washakie, negotiated and signed the Treaty
on behalf of multiple bands comprising the “Shoshone
Tribe,” including the Northwestern Band. See Shoshone
Tribe of Indians of Wind River Rsrv., Wyoming v. United
States, 11 Ind. Cl. Comm. 387, 402–04 (1962). The Indian
Claims Commission found that the Northwestern Band was
represented by Chief Washakie and bound by the terms of
the Treaty, even though the Northwestern Band’s leader,
Chief Pocatello, was not present at the 1868 Treaty signing.
Id. The Commission also found that the land the Shoshone
ceded to the United States included the Northwestern Band’s
“favored” locations in Southern Idaho and northern Utah. Id.
at 404, 413–15.
    In Article I of the Treaty, the parties pledged to maintain
peace. 15 Stat. at 673. In Article II, the United States agreed
to “set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and
occupation of the Shoshonee [sic] Indians” a reservation in
the Wind River area of present-day Wyoming. Id. at 674.
    NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN                   7

The United States also agreed that “whenever the Bannacks
[sic] desire a reservation to be set apart for their use, or
whenever the President of the United States shall deem it
advisable for them to be put upon a reservation,” the
President would “cause a suitable one to be selected for them
in their present country.” Id. The Tribes agreed to
“relinquish all title, claims, or rights in and to any portion of
the territory of the United States” outside of those
reservations. 1 Id. In Article III, the United States agreed to
construct various buildings on the Shoshone reservation. Id.
   Article IV, which includes the disputed hunting-right
provision, states in full:

         The Indians herein named agree, when the
         agency house and other buildings shall be
         constructed on their reservations named, they
         will make said reservations their permanent
         home, and they will make no permanent
         settlement elsewhere; but they shall have the
         right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the
         United States so long as game may be found
         thereon, and so long as peace subsists among
         the whites and Indians on the borders of the
         hunting districts.

Id. at 674–75. 2

1
  The Shoshone ceded over 41 million acres to the United States. See
Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Rsrv. in Wyoming v. United
States, 299 U.S. 476, 485 (1937); Shoshone Tribe, 11 Ind. Cl. Comm. at
412, 415.
2
  The parties agree that the “right to hunt” includes the right to hunt and
fish.
8   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

    The second reservation that Article II contemplated was
established in the Fort Hall area of present-day Idaho by
Executive Order dated July 30, 1869.
    In 1873, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs established
a commission to “investigate all tribes and bands in this
region and to ascertain their number and the probability of
gathering them upon one or more reservations where they
could be more immediately under the care of the
Government.” Northwestern Bands I, 95 Ct. Cl at 677. The
commission found that, as of 1873, an indefinite number of
Northwestern Shoshones had moved to the Wind River
Reservation, 400 resided on the Fort Hall Reservation, and
400 resided in southern Idaho. See id. at 677–78.
Additionally, in 1873, an Indian agent assigned a number of
Northwestern Shoshones who had gathered in northeastern
Nevada to a small tract there, which was established as a
reservation by Executive Order in 1877. Id. at 678. However,
that reservation was terminated in 1879, and the Shoshones
who resided there were moved to the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation established for the Western Shoshone. Id.
Another group of Northwestern Shoshones settled in
northern Utah.
    The group of Northwestern Shoshones who settled in
Utah is federally recognized as the Northwestern Band of the
Shoshone Nation. The federal government maintains
separate government-to-government relationships with the
Northwestern Band, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind
River Reservation, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the
Fort Hall Reservation. See 87 Fed. Reg. 4636, 4636–39 (Jan.
28, 2022).
    In 1985, the Northwestern Band asked the Bureau of
Indian Affairs within the U.S. Department of the Interior
   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN      9

(DOI) to confirm that the Band maintained hunting and
fishing rights under the 1868 Treaty. In a memorandum
dated March 20, 1985, Lawrence E. Cox, Acting Regional
Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region, concluded that “the
Northwestern Band does possess treaty protected hunting
and fishing rights which may be exercised on the unoccupied
lands within the area acquired by the United States pursuant
to the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger.” In reaching that
conclusion, the DOI adopted the findings of the Indian
Claims Commission, including the finding “that Chief
Washakie represented the interests of all Shoshone Indians,
including the absent Northwestern Band led by Pocatello,”
at the Treaty signing. Because the Northwestern Band was
represented by Chief Washakie at the Treaty signing, the
DOI concluded that “the Northwestern Band’s rights derive
directly from the treaty as a signatory.”
    In 1997, Idaho cited two members of the Northwestern
Band, Shane and Wayde Warner, for hunting big game out
of season, a misdemeanor under state law. The Warners
asserted their hunting right under the Treaty as a defense.
The state court rejected that defense, because it interpreted
the Treaty as conditioning the hunting right on permanent
residence on a reservation. State of Idaho v. Warner, Idaho
Case Nos. CR-98-00014 and CR-98-00015 (Idaho Dist. Ct.
Nov. 1, 2000). Thus, in the state court’s view, the Treaty’s
hunting right vested only in the Eastern Shoshone Tribe at
the Wind River Reservation and the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribe at the Fort Hall Reservation, and the Northwestern
Band could not exercise the Treaty-protected hunting right
unless it maintained political cohesion with either of those
tribal entities. Id. The state court also found that the
Northwestern Band had failed to maintain the required
political cohesion. Id.
10 NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

   In 2019, Wyatt Athay and Shanelle Long, also
Northwestern Band members, asserted their hunting right
under the Treaty as a defense to Idaho-issued citations for
hunting without tags. The parties agreed to stay the matter
pending the resolution of this case, in which the
Northwestern Band seeks a declaration that it possesses the
Treaty-protected hunting right.
   The Northwestern Band filed the complaint in this case
against the State of Idaho, Governor Brad Little, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game Director Ed Schriever, and
Idaho Department of Fish and Game Enforcement Bureau
Chief Greg Wooten. 3
     Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and
12(b)(7). The district court concluded that the Eleventh
Amendment bars the claims against the State of Idaho and
granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) “only as
it relates to the State of Idaho.” The Northwestern Band does
not appeal the dismissal of the State of Idaho from the case.
    The district court also granted Defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants argued that the
Treaty conditioned the hunting right on permanent residence
on either the Fort Hall Reservation or the Wind River
Reservation, and that the Northwestern Band failed to satisfy
that condition. Defendants also argued that the Northwestern
Band could exercise the hunting right only if it maintained
political cohesion with the Eastern Shoshone Tribe or the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and that the Band had failed to do
so.

3
    The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Governor Little from the case.
    NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN 11

    The district court agreed with Defendants’ treaty
interpretation. The district court declined to address whether
the Northwestern Band has maintained political cohesion
with the other Shoshone tribes. The district court also
declined to decide whether the complaint should be
dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party under
Rule 12(b)(7). 4
    The only issue on appeal is whether the district court
erred in concluding that the Treaty makes the reserved
hunting right contingent on permanent residence on the Fort
Hall or Wind River Reservations. We review de novo the
interpretation of treaty language. United States v. State of
Wash., 969 F.2d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1992).
                                   II.
    “A treaty is ‘essentially a contract between two
sovereign nations.’” Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686,
1699 (2019) (quoting Washington v. Wash. State Com.
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 675,
modified sub nom. Washington v. United States, 444 U.S.
816 (1979)). “Treaty analysis begins with the text, and treaty
terms are construed as ‘they would naturally be understood
by the Indians.’” Id. at 1701 (quoting Fishing Vessel Ass’n.,
443 U.S. at 676). To determine how terms would have been
understood by the Indians who are parties to the treaty, “we
look beyond the written words to the larger context that
frames the Treaty, including ‘the history of the treaty, the
negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the
parties.’” Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa

4
 Defendants contended that the complaint “should be dismissed under
Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a necessary and indispensable party that
cannot be joined due to sovereign immunity, the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.”
12 NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 196 (1999). Any ambiguities must be
“resolved in favor of the Indians.’” Id. at 206.
    The Idaho officials contend that Article IV of the Treaty
makes the hunting right contingent on permanent residence
on one of the designated reservations. The Northwestern
Band contends that Article IV reserves their aboriginal
hunting right on the ceded lands without requiring relocation
to a reservation. For the reasons discussed below, we agree
with the Northwestern Band’s interpretation. 5
     We begin with the Treaty text. In Article I, the parties
promised they would maintain peaceful relations. In Article
II, the Tribes “relinquish[ed] all title, claims, or rights in and
to” over 40 million acres of land—effectively giving up their

5
  The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation filed an
amicus brief in support of the State of Idaho seeking affirmance of the
district court’s dismissal order. However, although the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation explain that they “oppose[]
expanding the Fort Bridger off-reservation treaty rights” to the
Northwestern Band, they do not actually endorse the Idaho officials’
interpretation of the Treaty. We also note that the Idaho defendants
submitted a declaration of the Chairman of the Fort Hall Business
Council, Devon Boyer, in support of their motion to dismiss for failure
to join a necessary party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). In the
declaration, Chairman Boyer explains that the Tribal Code of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation provides: “Only
enrolled members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes who make the Fort
Hall Reservation their permanent home shall enjoy the off-Reservation
Tribal hunting and fishing rights as set forth pursuant to the Fort Bridger
Treaty of July 3, 1868, and subsequent agreements between the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the United States government.” While
Chairman Boyer explains how the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Tribal
Code regulates and protects their hunting and fishing rights, he does not
state that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes agree with the Idaho defendants’
interpretation of the Treaty, or otherwise explain how the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes interpret the Treaty.
   NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN 13

nomadic way of life in which they roamed over and lived on
a vast territory. In exchange, the United States promised to
“set apart” some land for the “absolute and undisturbed use
and occupation of the Shoshonee,” which is now known as
the Wind River reservation. The United States also agreed
that “whenever [the Bannock] desire a reservation to be set
apart for their use, or whenever the President of the United
States shall deem it advisable for them to be put upon a
reservation,” “a suitable one” would be selected for them “in
their present country.” In Article III, the United States
promised to construct various facilities on the Shoshone
reservation. Article IV states, “the Indians herein named
agree . . . [to] make said reservations their permanent home,
and they will make no permanent settlement elsewhere; but
they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of
the United States . . . .” Reading Article IV in context, we
conclude that the Tribes “naturally would have understood”
its terms to mean that they were agreeing to give up their
claims to and rights in their ancestral territory and relocate
to reservations, but also reserving (and thus retaining) their
right to hunt throughout that territory.
    The Treaty imposes only four conditions on the Tribes’
right to hunt. Two of the conditions describe the land where
the Tribes may hunt: 1) the land must belong to “the United
States,” and 2) the land must be “unoccupied.” The Treaty
also conditions the Tribes’ right to hunt using expressly
conditional language: the Tribes may hunt 3) “so long as
game may be found” on the unoccupied federal land, and 4)
“so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on
14 NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

the borders of the hunting districts.” (Emphases added.) 6
The Treaty does not expressly identify permanent residence
on a reservation as a fifth condition of the hunting right. If
the parties to the Treaty had intended to make permanent
residence on a reservation a fifth condition of the hunting
right, they could have easily done so, for example, by using
the same clear language that they used to impose the other
conditions on the hunting right. Because Article IV
explicitly imposes only four conditions on the hunting right,
we conclude that the parties did not implicitly impose a fifth
condition. Further, we conclude that the Tribes would not
have naturally understood the terms of Article IV to mean
that a tribe, or a band of the tribe, would lose its reserved
hunting right if it did not move to a reservation.
    A careful reading of Article II confirms that the parties
did not intend to make the hunting right contingent on
permanent residence on a reservation. In that article, the
United States agreed to set aside a reservation for the
Shoshone at Wind River. The United States also agreed it
would create a second reservation for the Bannock
“whenever” either the Bannock “desire[d] a reservation” or
the President “deem[ed] it advisable.” Thus, at the time of
the Treaty signing, it was uncertain that a second reservation
for the Bannock would be created. And although Article II
generally describes the area in which the potential Bannock
reservation would be located, Article II does not specify its

6
  See also Herrera, 139 S. Ct. at 1694, 1699 (interpreting Crow Treaty
containing “identical language reserving an off-reservation hunting
right” as “identif[ying] four situations that would terminate the right: (1)
the lands are no longer ‘unoccupied’; (2) the lands no longer belong to
the United States; (3) game can no longer ‘be found thereon’; and (4) the
Tribe and non-Indians are no longer at ‘peace . . . on the borders of the
hunting districts’” (quoting art. IV, 15 Stat. 650)).
    NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN 15

size or geographic boundaries. Because the establishment of
a potential Bannock reservation was uncertain, we conclude
that the Indians would not have understood Article IV to
mean that the Bannock (or any Shoshone band) would forfeit
its reserved hunting right if it did not reside on a reservation.
    The Idaho officials’ counterarguments are unpersuasive.
The Idaho officials agree that the Treaty drafter’s use of the
conjunction “but” in Article IV makes the second clause (the
reserved hunting right) “an exception” to the first clause (the
promise to reside on reservations). Yet, they also argue that
the conjunction “but” makes the first clause a condition of
the second clause. The Idaho officials do not identify any
definition of the word “but” that would make the first clause
a condition of the second. Instead, they broadly argue that
because Article IV joins the two clauses with a conjunction,
the first clause is related to the second clause. On that much,
we can agree. The Idaho officials, however, then argue that
because the clauses are related, the first clause (the promise
to live on a reservation) must be a condition of the second
clause (the right to hunt)—as if that is the only possible
relationship between the two clauses. We disagree. In our
view, the text and structure of Article IV indicate that the
Tribes agreed to cede their land and reside on a reservation
on the condition that they would keep their right to hunt on
the ceded territory—not the other way around. 7

7
  It is clear to us that the Treaty text does not support the Idaho officials’
interpretation. But even if the text were ambiguous, we would be
obligated to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the Tribes who are parties
to the Treaty, which include the Northwestern Band. See Mille Lacs, 526
U.S. at 206; see also Wash. State Dep’t of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.,
139 S. Ct. 1000, 1016 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (“After all, the
16 NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

    The district court agreed with the Idaho officials’
interpretation because, in its view, “the promise to live on
the reservation was the most significant promise made by the
Indians” in the Treaty, and the United States “grant[ed]
Hunting Rights” to the Tribes in exchange for that promise.
Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation v. Idaho, 580 F.
Supp. 3d 897, 905–06 (D. Idaho 2022). The district court
further reasoned that, if the hunting right were not
conditioned on the Tribes’ promise to live on a reservation
(as the Northwestern Band contends), then that promise
would be “superfluous.” 8 Id. at 906. In turn, that would
mean the United States made a series of promises to the
Tribes “for de minimis consideration.” Id. Because “[i]t
would make little sense for the government to grant Hunting
Rights but not receive anything in exchange,” the district
court rejected the Northwestern Band’s interpretation. Id.
   We are not persuaded by the district court’s reasoning
because it misunderstands the Treaty in several significant
ways.
    First, the United States did not “grant Hunting Rights” to
the Tribes; rather, the Tribes ceded their land to the United

United States drew up this contract, and we normally construe any
ambiguities against the drafter who enjoys the power of the pen. Nor is
there any question that the government employed that power to its
advantage in this case.”).
8
  The district court appears to have assumed that the promise to live on a
reservation would be “superfluous” unless a breach of that promise
resulted in forfeiture of the hunting right. However, forfeiture of the
hunting right is not the only potential remedy. And, as the United States
notes in its amicus brief, only the United States may remedy a tribe’s
alleged breach of the Treaty. See Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. (19
How.) 366, 370–72 (1856). And, it would be up to the United States to
decide what, if any, remedy to pursue.
    NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN 17

States but reserved their existing right to hunt on that land.
Herrera, 139 S. Ct. at 1694 (noting that the 1868 Shoshone-
Bannock Treaty “reserv[ed] an off-reservation hunting
right”); see also U.S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905)
(noting that a similar treaty “was not a grant of rights to the
Indians, but a grant of right from them, [and] a reservation
of those not granted”).
    Second, the United States received substantial
consideration under the Treaty: the Tribes promised to
maintain peace (Article I) and they relinquished their claims
to over 40 million acres of land (Article II).
    Third, considering all the Treaty’s terms and the
historical evidence in the record, we find that the promise to
reside on a reservation was not critical or material to the
parties’ agreement. The critical promises made by the Tribes
were the promise to maintain peace and the promise to
relinquish their land claims. Indeed, the parties expressly
made the reserved hunting right contingent on maintaining
peace. In contrast, the parties did not expressly make the
reserved hunting right contingent on living on a reservation.
And the parties neither set a deadline for the United States to
complete construction of the promised reservation facilities
nor set a deadline for the Tribes to move onto a reservation.
    The Idaho officials attached to their answering brief on
appeal a report by the United States’ negotiator, General
Auger, on the Fort Bridger Treaty. This report was not in the
record before the district court, which dismissed the
Northwestern Band’s complaint without an evidentiary
hearing. But even assuming we may consider the report, it
would support the Northwestern Band’s interpretation.
General Auger reported that he described living on the
reservations as a benefit to the Tribes. Specifically, he told
18 NORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION V. WOOTEN

the Tribes that the United States wanted them to live on the
reservations because doing so would make it easier for the
federal government to help them, and it would enable the
Tribes to survive when game disappeared. General Augur
did not describe living on a reservation as a requirement or
condition of the hunting right. He did not state that the Tribes
would lose their hunting right if they did not move to a
reservation. Consequently, the Tribes would not have
understood the Treaty’s terms to mean that they would
forfeit their right to hunt if they did not permanently reside
on a reservation.
                           *****
    We conclude that the 1868 Treaty does not make
maintenance of the Tribes’ reserved hunting rights
contingent on permanent residence on a designated
reservation. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s
dismissal of the Northwestern Band’s complaint for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Because the district
court did not reach the Idaho officials’ alternative arguments
regarding political cohesion and necessary joinder, we
remand this case for the district court to address those issues
in the first instance.
   REVERSED AND REMANDED.