Parravano v. Babbitt
70 F.3d 539, 1995 WL 678479 (1995)
Rule of Law:
Tribal fishing rights derived from executive orders creating reservations are entitled to the same legal protection as rights derived from treaties and constitute "other applicable law" under the Magnuson Act, requiring the Secretary of Commerce to regulate ocean harvesting to preserve those rights.
Facts:
- Klamath River fall chinook salmon are anadromous fish that migrate from the Pacific Ocean to the Klamath River to spawn, serving as a primary food source and economic livelihood for the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Indian Tribes.
- In 1876 and 1891, U.S. Presidents issued executive orders establishing and extending reservations for these Tribes along the Klamath River "for Indian purposes."
- The Pacific Fishery Management Council is responsible for recommending ocean harvest levels to the Secretary of Commerce under the Magnuson Act.
- For the fall 1993 season, the Pacific Council recommended a 22% ocean harvest rate, which the Department of the Interior warned would not leave enough salmon for the Tribes to harvest a 50% share in the river.
- Fearing the Council's recommendation would violate Tribal rights, Secretary of Commerce Brown rejected the recommendation.
- Secretary Brown issued emergency regulations lowering the commercial ocean harvest rate to 14.5% to ensure a higher number of fish escaped upstream for Tribal harvest and spawning.
- Parravano and other commercial fishermen, whose potential catch was reduced by these emergency regulations, challenged the Secretary's authority to prioritize Executive Order-based tribal rights over commercial fishing.
Procedural Posture:
- Parravano and commercial fishing associations filed suit against the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Secretaries, ruling that the fishing rights constituted "other applicable law" under the Magnuson Act.
- The District Court dismissed the remaining claims against the Secretary of the Interior for lack of standing and jurisdiction.
- Parravano appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Secretary of Commerce have the authority under the Magnuson Act to reduce commercial ocean harvest limits for the purpose of protecting tribal fishing rights derived from executive orders rather than treaties?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson
Yes, the Secretary of Commerce acted within his authority because fishing rights reserved by executive order constitute "any other applicable law" that the Magnuson Act requires the Secretary to respect. The court rejected the argument that tribes with reservations created by executive order have fewer rights than those created by treaty. Drawing on the canon of construction that legal instruments must be interpreted as Indians would have understood them, the court found that the phrase "for Indian purposes" in the 1876 and 1891 executive orders necessarily included the right to fish. Furthermore, because the salmon are migratory, the federal government's trust responsibility requires regulating ocean fishing to prevent the depletion of the resource before it reaches the reservation. Consequently, the Secretary's decision to reduce ocean harvest limits to protect these rights was not arbitrary or capricious.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of federal Indian law because it explicitly rejects a hierarchy between Treaty tribes and Executive Order tribes regarding reserved resource rights. By interpreting "other applicable law" in the Magnuson Act to include executive order-based fishing rights, the Ninth Circuit mandated that federal agencies coordinate the management of offshore commercial resources with inland tribal subsistence rights. It effectively creates a conservation burden on commercial ocean fisheries to ensure that enough fish survive to migrate upriver, reinforcing the federal trust doctrine even when the specific tribal rights are not explicitly detailed in a treaty text.
