Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn.

1979-07-02

Headline: Treaty fishing rights upheld: Court holds Northwest tribes entitled to a protected share of salmon runs, limits state control, and allows federal enforcement, affecting commercial and tribal fishermen and state regulators.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Requires states to allocate portions of salmon runs to treaty tribes.
Allows federal courts and agencies to enforce and supervise fisheries when states refuse.
Makes conflicting state or international rules yield where they would defeat treaty shares.

Topics: Indian treaty fishing rights, salmon and fisheries allocation, state versus federal authority, tribal fishing rights

Summary

Background

A series of treaties in 1854–1855 between the United States and Pacific Northwest tribes ceded most tribal land while reserving small reservations and a guarantee of the “right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations … in common with all citizens of the Territory.” In 1970 the United States sued Washington to enforce that promise after fish runs declined and federal and state courts issued conflicting rulings. The District Court awarded tribes about a 45–50% share of harvestable runs that pass through tribal fishing places; Washington’s courts later held Fisheries could not follow the federal decree.

Reasoning

The Court framed the core question as what the treaty promise meant in the practical understanding of the parties. Relying on earlier decisions about the same treaty language, the majority concluded the clause secured tribes a right to take a share of each run that passes through their usual and accustomed places. The Court said treaties with Indians should be read as Indians would reasonably have understood them, rejected an “equal opportunity” reading that would leave tribes with no effective entitlement, and endorsed a roughly equal starting split with a 50% ceiling, subject to downward adjustment to meet only tribal needs. It also held federal courts and agencies may enforce and, if necessary, directly supervise fisheries to protect treaty rights.

Real world impact

The ruling requires state regulators to allocate portions of salmon and other anadromous runs to treaty tribes, directly affecting commercial and sport fishermen, processors, and state agencies. Federal law and federal enforcement take priority over conflicting state rules or international commission rules where they would defeat treaty shares. The decision sets a framework that lower courts and agencies must use to implement specific allocations and rules while allowing adjustments for changing circumstances.