Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation's attempt to intervene in longstanding litigation concerning off-reservation fishing rights on the Columbia River, originally initiated by the United States in 1968. The primary legal issue is whether six of Colville's constituent tribes retain treaty fishing rights under two 1855 treaties, the Yakima and Nez Perce Treaties. The district court denied Colville's motion to intervene, citing a failure to demonstrate timely assertion and lack of treaty rights, a decision Colville has appealed. The court analyzed the historical context of the treaties, emphasizing the need for a continuous political or cultural link to the original treaty signatories. It found that the constituent tribes had not maintained the necessary political cohesion with the original treaty entities, resulting in the loss of their treaty fishing rights. The decision was based on the historical separations and subsequent treaties negotiated by tribal leaders, which did not preserve these rights. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of Colville's intervention, impacting the tribes' ability to assert fishing rights under the original treaties.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of Tribal Merger on Treaty Rightssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the merger of tribes into a confederacy or subsequent treaties did not extinguish pre-existing treaty rights, but the lack of political cohesion with the original treaty signatories did.
Reasoning: The court disagreed with the assertion that any rights, if retained, were extinguished by merger into the Confederacy or by subsequent treaties negotiated by Chief Moses.
Historical Context of Treaty Rightssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered historical treaties and subsequent actions to determine whether the tribes retained their fishing rights, concluding that the constituent tribes of Colville did not maintain these rights.
Reasoning: The treaties, however, were criticized for their hasty and arbitrary nature, failing to accurately represent the complexities of Indian culture at the time.
Intervention in Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation's motion to intervene in existing litigation regarding fishing rights was denied due to a lack of timely assertion and failure to demonstrate treaty rights.
Reasoning: The district court denied Colville's intervention motion, concluding that it could not claim treaty fishing rights for its constituent tribes. Colville is now appealing this decision.
Specific Treaty Analysis - Yakima and Nez Perce Treatiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision evaluated the specific terms and historical application of the 1855 Yakima and Nez Perce Treaties, finding that the constituent tribes of Colville lacked the necessary political cohesion to claim fishing rights.
Reasoning: The Yakima Treaty of June 9, 1855 included the Wenatchi, Entiat, Chelan, Columbia, and Palus tribes, which have stipulated their participation in the treaty.
Treaty Rights and Tribal Continuitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that for tribes to assert treaty rights, they must demonstrate a continuous political or cultural link to the original treaty-signing tribes.
Reasoning: Legal precedent requires a continuous political or cultural link to the original treaty rights holder.