Antoine v. Washington

1975-02-19

Headline: Court reverses convictions of Colville tribal members for out-of-season deer hunting, rules Congress approved an 1891 agreement preserving tribal hunting and fishing rights and blocks state game law enforcement against those rights.

Holding: The Court held that Congress approving the 1891 agreement made Article 6 federal law protecting Colville tribal members’ hunting and fishing rights from Washington’s state game laws, and it reversed their convictions.

Real World Impact:

Prevents Washington from enforcing state hunt bans against federally preserved tribal rights on ceded lands.
Reverses convictions of tribal members for out-of-season hunting under state law.
Leaves open whether neutral conservation rules can lawfully limit those federal rights.

Topics: tribal hunting rights, state hunting limits, federal law overrides state law, reservation cession agreements

Summary

Background

A husband and wife who are members of the Colville Confederated Tribes were convicted under Washington law for hunting and possessing a deer during closed season on land that had once been part of the northern half of the Colville Reservation. In a 1891 cession agreement, Article 6 said the right to hunt and fish "shall not be taken away or in anywise abridged." The couple argued that Congress later approved that agreement, so those federal rights could not be cut down by state game laws.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the acts of Congress in 1906 and the later appropriation laws made Article 6 into federal law that overrides state regulation. The Court applied longstanding rules that agreements affecting Indians should not be read to their disadvantage and concluded Congress "carried into effect" and ratified the agreement. Because the preserved hunting and fishing right was made part of the law of the United States, the State could not enforce its game-season ban to abridge that federal right. The Court did not decide when or how conservation rules might validly limit those rights.

Real world impact

As a result, Washington’s out-of-season deer ban could not be used to convict these tribal members for exercising the federally preserved hunting right on the ceded lands at issue. The decision leaves open whether and how neutral conservation regulations might limit the right; the Court noted the State made no conservation showing here. The opinion also recognized that fenced private land and conflicts with private landowners raise separate questions not decided in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas joined and emphasized the same construction in favor of the Indians. Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justice Stewart) dissented, arguing the 1906 and later statutes did not clearly adopt Article 6 and that Congress did not actually enact the hunting and fishing protections into law.