But it turns out that Kennedy participated in an earlier phase of the long-running case, which dates to the 1970s, when he served on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "The ordinary conflict check conducted in Justice Kennedy’s chambers inadvertently failed to find this conflict," a March 23 letter stated. With Kennedy out of the picture, the case was left to the eight remaining justices. And some were clearly struggling with the main issue -- whether the state of Washington violated treaties signed in 1854 and 1855 by failing to ensure safe passage for salmon that tribes depend on for their economic, cultural and social livelihood. "I wonder if that means that we ought to send it back and let the courts who haven't had that opportunity yet have that opportunity," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said during the hour-long hearing in April. The dispute, which already resulted in one failed appeal to the Supreme Court more than four decades ago, may indeed live on. But the deadlock means that the tribes have won a key battle in the war.
"The Supreme Court split 4-4 on the culvert case this morning, meaning the earlier 9th Circuit ruling in the case stands," the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) said in its initial response to the development. Yet the fact that the case even made it to the Supreme Court raised alarms. Some in Indian Country felt betrayed when Washington's Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the appeal last fall. "Washington burned down the whole damn orchard. Almost all the way," prominent activist Gyasi Ross, who resides in Washington, wrote last week in Crosscut. When the Supreme Court granted the state's petition in January, Ferguson said he was open to some sort of settlement regarding the culverts. Fixing them is a massive undertaking that is estimated to cost billions of dollars.The Supreme Court split 4-4 on the culvert case this morning, meaning the earlier 9th Circuit ruling in the case standshttps://t.co/XSELkI8nan
— NW Treaty Tribes (@nwtreatytribes) June 11, 2018
"The state of Washington wants to protect salmon and has voluntarily spent billions of dollars to achieve that goal," Noah Purcell, who is Washington's Solicitor General, told the Supreme Court in April. "Our objection is the unworkable treaty right the 9th Circuit announced," he added, referring to the lower court victory secured by the tribes. Of the 1,000-plus culverts that were blocked when the proceeding began in 2011, the vast majority have been cleared, leaving fewer than 400 to be repaired, according to tribes. The state has even received federal funds to carry out the task "When the United States promised the tribes federal protection for their preexisting right to take fish, that included more than just the hollow promise of access to fisheries that could be blocked off and emptied of their salmon," Allon Kedem of the Department of Justice, which sided with the tribes, said during oral arguments.
The Supreme Court's action on Monday resolves a third Indian law case of the current term, which began in October. Tribal advocates have called the season unusually busy, due to the large number of petitions presented to the justices. Despite the unprecedented workload, tribal interests have fared surprisingly well. In Patchak v. Zinke, the court held that Congress can protect tribal homelands from litigation, an outcome that benefits Indian Country's legislative agenda. In Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, the justices did not deliver a complete victory for the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe in a property dispute in Washington state. But the court sent a strong message about a prior case in order to resolve questions about tribal sovereign immunity. The remaining Indian law case on the docket is Royal v. Murphy. At issue is whether Congress disestablished the reservation of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, thus giving jurisdiction to the state of Oklahoma. The petition was only granted on May 21 so oral arguments will have to wait until the next October term this fall. U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
Washington v. U.S. (June 11, 2018) U.S. Supreme Court Documents:
Oral Argument Transcript | Questions Presented | Docket Sheet: No. 17-269 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decisions:
US v. Washington (May 19, 2017)
US v. Washington (June 27, 2016)
Join the Conversation
Related Stories
Gyasi
Ross: Washington attorney general attacks tribal treaty rights (June 6, 2018)Monte Mills: Supreme Court weighs old tribal treaties in modern case (May 14, 2018)
Tribes hail historic Supreme Court hire as justices hear treaty rights case (April 18, 2018)
Supreme Court schedules April 18 argument in tribal treaty rights case (February 26, 2018)
Tribes see continued challenges as more cases head to highest court (February 21, 2018)
Supreme Court schedules March 21 argument in tribal property case (January 24, 2018)
Treaty tribes stunned as Supreme Court agrees to hear salmon passage case (January 15, 2018)
Supreme Court shakes up docket by accepting sovereignty case at request of tribe (December 11, 2017)
Treaty tribes upset with appeal in major case amid salmon disaster in Washington (August 29, 2017)
Treaty tribes celebrate after court refuses to rehear salmon dispute (May 22, 2017)
White House task force to address treaty issues in Washington (October 19, 2016)
Washington tribes win major fishing rights decision at appeals court (June 27, 2016)
Washington fights tribal treaty rights decision before 9th Circuit (July 6, 2015)
Washington wants 9th Circuit to take up treaty fishing case (May 29, 2013)
Treaty tribes in Washington win major decision in fishing case (April 1, 2013)
