Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington

Supreme Court of the United States
1977 U.S. LEXIS 138, 53 L. Ed. 2d 667, 433 U.S. 165 (1977)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state court lacks jurisdiction over a recognized Indian tribe due to sovereign immunity, but may regulate the fishing activities of individual tribal members, including on reservation land that has been largely alienated, if such regulation is necessary for conservation and consistent with treaty rights for a shared natural resource.

Facts:

In 1854, the Puyallup Tribe and other tribes signed the Treaty of Medicine Creek with territorial Governor Isaac I. Stevens.
Article II of the Treaty set apart reservation land for the tribes' 'exclusive use,' prohibiting white settlement without permission.
Article III of the Treaty secured the right of taking fish at 'all usual and accustomed grounds and stations' to the Indians 'in common with all citizens of the Territory.'
Anadromous fish, such as steelhead trout, spend most of their lives at sea and return to freshwater streams like the Puyallup River to spawn.
The Puyallup Tribe subsequently alienated all but 22 acres of its original 18,000-acre reservation, with none of the remaining acreage abutting the Puyallup River.
Individual Puyallup tribal members fished extensively in the Puyallup River using set nets and drift nets.
Non-Indian licensees of the Washington Department of Game also fished in great numbers within the original reservation area.
The State of Washington alleged that the extensive netting by tribal members, who claimed immunity from state conservation laws, would virtually exterminate the anadromous fishery.

Procedural Posture:

The Department of Game of the State of Washington (respondent) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against 41 individuals, including members of the Puyallup Tribe, alleging violations of state conservation laws and seeking an injunction against net fishing.
The trial court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining individual defendants from netting fish.
The Puyallup Tribe filed a 'Return on Temporary Restraining Order and Answer to Complaint' on behalf of itself and its individual members, asserting exclusive fishing rights under the Treaty of Medicine Creek and tribal sovereign immunity.
The trial court initially held that the Puyallup Tribe had ceased to exist, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed this holding, recognizing the Tribe's continued existence.
In Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept. (Puyallup I, 1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Treaty of Medicine Creek did not prevent reasonable state conservation regulation of off-reservation fishing by Indians 'in common with' others, and remanded to the state court to determine if a total ban on net fishing was justified.
On remand from Puyallup I, the Washington Supreme Court sustained a total ban on all net fishing for steelhead by tribal members.
In Washington Game Dept. v. Puyallup Tribe (Puyallup II, 1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a complete ban on net fishing for steelhead trout was precluded by the treaty, and remanded again for the state courts to devise a formula for 'fairly apportioning' the steelhead catch between Indian net fishing and non-Indian sport fishing.
Following Puyallup II, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a separate case (United States v. Washington), held that the Puyallup Indian reservation continued to exist.
On remand from Puyallup II, the state trial court conducted a two-week trial with expert testimony to determine steelhead numbers and sustainable catch limits, then allocated 45% of the annual natural steelhead run to the treaty fishermen's net fishery, and issued an order directly against the Tribe.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, with a slight modification.

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 tribal sovereign immunity prevent a state court from issuing an order directly against an Indian tribe, and do state courts have jurisdiction to regulate on-reservation fishing by tribal members on largely alienated reservation land when the fishing threatens a shared natural resource?

Opinions:

Majority - Stevens

Yes, tribal sovereign immunity prevents state courts from exercising jurisdiction over a recognized Indian tribe, but no, state courts do have jurisdiction to regulate individual tribal members' fishing, even on reservation land, where necessary for conservation and consistent with treaty rights, especially when the reservation land has been largely alienated. The Court affirmed that absent an effective waiver or consent, a state court may not exercise jurisdiction over a recognized Indian tribe. The Tribe's participation in litigation on behalf of its individual members does not constitute a waiver of its own sovereign immunity. Therefore, any portions of the state-court order that are directed to the Tribe itself, such as limiting the total tribal catch or requiring the Tribe to identify members and report catches, must be vacated. However, this assertion of tribal immunity does not diminish the state court's authority to adjudicate the rights of individual tribal members over whom it has properly obtained personal jurisdiction. Regarding on-reservation fishing, the Court clarified that its prior decisions in Puyallup I and Puyallup II established that the treaty right to fish 'in common with all citizens of the Territory' is not exclusive and is subject to reasonable state regulation for conservation. Given that the Puyallup Reservation had been largely alienated to only 22 acres not abutting the river, and non-Indian licensees already fish in the area, allowing untrammeled on-reservation fishing by the Tribe would effectively enable them to 'interdict completely the migrating fish run,' frustrating both state court jurisdiction and the rights of non-Indian citizens. The Court rejected the Tribe's claim to an exclusive right to take steelhead while passing through its reservation, reaffirming its prior unanimous decisions. Finally, the Court found that the lower courts properly applied a standard of conservation necessity by conducting a two-week trial with expert testimony to determine the sustainable number of steelhead and fairly allocate 45% of the natural run to the treaty fishermen's net fishery, as mandated by Puyallup II.

Dissenting - Brennan

Yes, tribal sovereign immunity does prevent state courts from issuing orders directly against an Indian tribe, but no, state courts do not have jurisdiction to regulate on-reservation fishing by tribal members, as Article II of the Treaty of Medicine Creek guarantees exclusive fishing rights on the reservation. Justice Brennan agreed with the majority's resolution of the sovereign immunity question, affirming that a state court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a recognized Indian tribe without consent or waiver. However, he disagreed with the Court's interpretation of the Puyallup Indians' substantive fishing rights. He argued that Article II of the Treaty provides for 'exclusive use' of the reservation, including exclusive fishing rights for the Puyallups on the reservation, while Article III concerns off-reservation fishing rights to be exercised 'in common with all citizens.' Justice Brennan contended that Puyallup I and Puyallup II specifically addressed off-reservation fishing under Article III, and the current case, which involves on-reservation fishing, should be governed by Article II's guarantee of exclusive rights. He criticized the majority for 'casual disregard' of the Ninth Circuit's binding holding that the Puyallup Reservation continues to exist, a decision the Supreme Court had denied certiorari on. He asserted that the alienation of most of the reservation land does not extinguish the reservation status or the exclusive fishing rights. Furthermore, he noted that the State of Washington itself had conceded in another significant fishing rights case (United States v. Washington) that on-reservation fishing is not subject to state regulation. Justice Brennan concluded that the Court had never decided whether a state has the power to regulate on-reservation fishing for conservation and would have remanded for such a determination under Article II, rather than applying Article III's 'in common' standard to on-reservation activities.

Concurring - Blackmun

While implicitly agreeing with the majority's specific outcome regarding the Tribe and individual members, Justice Blackmun joined the Court's opinion but expressed doubts about the 'continuing vitality' of the doctrine of tribal immunity as enunciated in United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., suggesting that the doctrine 'may well merit re-examination in an appropriate case.'

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the delicate balance between tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and state conservation efforts, particularly concerning shared natural resources. It affirms the principle of tribal sovereign immunity against direct state court jurisdiction, yet simultaneously expands state regulatory power over individual tribal members' activities, even on reservation land, where necessary for conservation. The decision emphasizes that a treaty right to fish 'in common' with others implies a non-exclusive right, and that extensive alienation of reservation land can weaken claims of exclusive on-reservation control, especially for mobile resources like fish. This precedent sets a framework for states to regulate shared resources that traverse reservation boundaries, provided the regulations are conservation-based, non-discriminatory, and ensure fair apportionment, which will likely influence future litigation involving co-management of natural resources.

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington (1977) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.

Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Premium Feature