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

1977-06-23

Headline: Protects tribal sovereign immunity but allows Washington to limit individual tribal members’ net fishing for conservation, upholding a state allocation of steelhead and vacating orders directed at the tribe.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Affirms that a tribe cannot be sued in state court without its consent.
Allows Washington to limit individual tribal members’ net fishing for conservation.
Approves state allocation of steelhead catch, including a 45% share for treaty net fishery.

Topics: tribal sovereignty, Indian fishing rights, state fishing regulations, conservation and fisheries, treaty rights

Summary

Background

This long-running dispute involved the Puyallup Tribe and the Washington Department of Game over who may regulate fishing for steelhead in the Puyallup River. The Tribe relied on the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek, claiming exclusive reservation fishing rights, while the State sought to enforce conservation rules and limits on net fishing. The litigation produced earlier decisions instructing state courts to set conservation measures and to apportion runs between sport and net fisheries.

Reasoning

The Court read the treaty to protect tribal fishing rights but drew a key distinction. It held that the Tribe as a sovereign cannot be subjected to a state-court order without its consent, so parts of the judgment against the Tribe had to be vacated. At the same time, the Court confirmed that Washington may regulate individual tribal members’ off-reservation fishing in the interest of conservation and may set limits and allocations for the catch.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves intact the State’s ability to set conservation-based limits on individual tribal fishers and approves a specific allocation approach used by the state courts to protect the steelhead run. But it also protects the Tribe from direct state-court orders aimed at the tribal government without consent. The case was sent back to the Washington Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

A partial dissent argued the Court should not allow state regulation of on-reservation fishing and would remand state courts to consider conservation controls there; a Justice also noted the tribal-immunity doctrine may merit future re-examination.