Tulee v. Washington
Headline: Yakima tribal members protected from state fishing-license fees; Court bars Washington from charging fees for salmon fishing at traditional sites while allowing conservation rules.
Holding: The Court ruled that Washington may regulate the time and manner of fishing for conservation, but it cannot require Yakima tribal members to pay license fees to fish at their usual and accustomed places.
- Stops states from charging treaty Indians license fees at traditional fishing sites.
- Leaves states able to set neutral time and manner conservation rules.
- Protects tribal access to salmon fishing reserved by treaty.
Summary
Background
Sampson Tulee, a member of the Yakima tribe, was convicted in Washington for catching salmon with a net without buying a state license. The dispute centers on an 1855 treaty in which the Yakimas gave up most of their land but reserved the "exclusive right of taking fish" in streams on and off their reservation and at their usual and accustomed places. Washington said it could require licenses to conserve fish and raise revenue, and it argued its laws treated Indians the same as other people.
Reasoning
The Court was asked whether the treaty lets the state charge Indians a fee before they can fish at their traditional places. Looking to the treaty language and earlier decisions, the Court said the treaty reserved continuing fishing rights that the tribes understood they were keeping. The Justices explained that the State may adopt neutral rules about the time and manner of fishing to protect fish populations, but it cannot impose a license fee that operates as a charge for exercising the treaty right. Because the fee interfered with the very right the Indians reserved, the Court held the statute invalid as applied to Tulee and reversed the Washington Supreme Court.
Real world impact
The ruling means Yakima tribal members — and likely other tribes with similar treaty language — cannot be forced to pay state license fees to fish at their traditional sites. States retain the ability to adopt reasonable conservation rules about how and when fishing occurs, but those rules cannot be structured as a fee that bars treaty fishing. The decision requires states to respect treaty-protected fishing while still allowing practical conservation measures.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?