Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 Nos. 2016-1424, 2016-1435, 2016-1474, 2016-1482 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT PENOBSCOT NATION; UNITED STATES, on its own behalf, and for the benefit of the Penobscot Nation, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. AARON M. FREY, Attorney General for the State of Maine; JUDY A. CAMUSO, Commissioner for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; JOEL T. WILKINSON, Colonel for the Maine Warden Service; STATE OF MAINE; TOWN OF HOWLAND; TRUE TEXTILES, INC.; GUILFORD-SANGERVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT; CITY OF BREWER; TOWN OF MILLINOCKET; KRUGER ENERGY (USA) INC.; VEAZIE SEWER DISTRICT; TOWN OF MATTAWAMKEAG; COVANTA MAINE LLC; LINCOLN SANITARY DISTRICT; TOWN OF EAST MILLINOCKET; TOWN OF LINCOLN; VERSO PAPER CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, EXPERA OLD TOWN; TOWN OF BUCKSPORT; LINCOLN PAPER AND TISSUE LLC; GREAT NORTHERN PAPER COMPANY LLC, Defendants-Appellees. TOWN OF ORONO, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PENOBSCOT NATION Kaighn Smith, Jr. Pratik A. Shah David M. Kallin Lide E. Paterno Drummond Woodsum Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 2001 K Street, NW Portland, ME 04101-2480 Washington, DC 20006-1037 Phone: (207) 772-1941 Phone: (202) 887-4000 Fax: (207) 772-3627 Fax: (202) 887-4288 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Penobscot Nation Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 3 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 3 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................ 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 13 I. THE INDIAN CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION GOVERN THE SETTLEMENT ACTS ............................................................. 13 A. Indian Law Treaties And Statutes Must Be Read In Context And Any Resulting Ambiguity Resolved In Favor Of Indians ..................................................................... 13 B. The Indian Canons Apply To The Settlement Acts ................ 15 C. The State’s Attempts To Evade The Indian Canons Fail ....... 18 II. THE SETTLEMENT ACTS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE THE MAIN STEM WITHIN THE RESERVATION ............................................................................... 22 A. Alaska Pacific Fisheries Controls This Case .......................... 22 B. Traditional Tools of Statutory Construction Favor The Nation’s Interpretation ............................................................ 29 1. The Reservation Must Encompass The Main Stem To Give Effect To The Settlement Acts’ Guarantee Of On-Reservation Sustenance-Fishing Rights. .......... 29 i Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 2. The History Of The Settlement Acts Confirms That The Reservation Includes The Main Stem. .................. 32 3. The Post-Enactment Record Reinforces That The Reservation Encompasses The Main Stem. ................. 39 C. Indian Canons Foreclose An Interpretation That Excludes The Main Stem From The Reservation ................................... 45 III. THE NATION’S CLAIM TO SUSTENANCE-FISHING RIGHTS IN THE MAIN STEM, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IS RIPE FOR AFFIRMANCE ....................... 47 A. The Nation Has Standing To Bring Its Sustenance- Fishing Claim .......................................................................... 48 B. The Nation’s Sustenance-Fishing Claim is Ripe .................... 51 C. The District Court’s Grant Of The Nation’s Sustenance- Fishing Claim Should Be Affirmed ........................................ 54 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 55 ii Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Akins v. Penobscot Nation, 130 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 1997) ......................................................................... 26, 37 Alaska Pacific Fisheries Co. v. United States, 248 U.S. 78 (1918) .......................................................................................passim Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975) ............................................................................................ 18 Bottomly v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 599 F.2d 1061 (1st Cir. 1979) ............................................................................. 35 Cablevision of Boston, Inc. v. Public Improvement Comm’n of Boston, 184 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 30 Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 (1970) ................................................................................ 21, 22, 25 City of Boston v. Richardson, 95 Mass. 146 (1866) ........................................................................................... 42 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) ...................................................................................... 43, 44 Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 17, 18 Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) ............................................................................................ 30 County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) ................................................................................ 14, 19, 45 Deerfield v. Arms, 34 Mass. 41 (1835) ............................................................................................. 28 Greenwood Tr. Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 818 (1st Cir. 1992) ............................................................................... 33 iii Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) ...................................................................................... 31, 32 Handly’s Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 374 (1820) ........................................................................... 42 Hatch v. Dwight, 17 Mass. 289 (1821) ........................................................................................... 42 Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019) .................................................................................passim Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) .............................................................................................. 31 Hines v. Robinson, 57 Me. 324 (1869) .............................................................................................. 42 Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86 (1949) .............................................................................................. 25 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) ...................................................................................... 20, 21 Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (2001) ...................................................................................... 20, 21 In re Opinion of the Justices, 106 A. 865 (Me. 1919) ........................................................................................ 42 K–Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907 (1st Cir. 1989) ............................................................................... 43 Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston R.R. Co. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733 (1875) .............................................................................................. 33 Lincoln v. Wilder, 29 Me. 169 (1848) .............................................................................................. 42 Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 16, 20, 40 iv Case: 16-1474 Document: 00117612247 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/08/2020 Entry ID: 6351268 Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard, 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 48 Massachuetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............................................................................................ 49 Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), 853 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 2017) ............................................................................... 17 Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 984 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 17 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) .......................................................................... 14, 22, 35, 39 Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes