Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 1 of 81 No. 19-35610, 19-35611, 19-35638 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ________________ LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM INDIAN TRIBE; JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE; PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE, Petitioners-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. LUMMI NAT ION, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY; SUQUAMISH TRIBE; STATE OF WASHINGTON; MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE; STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE; NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE; TULALIP TRIBES; SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE; SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, Real-parties-in-interest ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:11-sp-00002-RSM ________________ BRIEF FOR APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTS JAMESTOWN AND PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBES ________________ GEORGE W. HICKS, JR. LAUREN RASMUSSEN KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Counsel of Record 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW LAW OFFICES OF Washington, DC 20004 LAUREN P. RASMUSSEN (202) 389-5000 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98107 (206) 623-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe February 18, 2020 Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 2 of 81 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are federally recognized Indian Tribes by the Secretary of the Interior. 83 Fed. Reg. 4235-02 (January 30, 2018). Accordingly, a corporate disclosure statement is not required by Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 3 of 81 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 5 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ON CROSS-APPEAL ......................................... 5 TREATIES INVOLVED ........................................................................................... 5 RESTATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................ 5 A. Background .......................................................................................... 5 1. The Boldt Decision and the Lummi U&A ................................. 6 2. The S’Klallam and Lower Elwha U&A .................................... 8 B. Lummi I, Lummi II, and Lummi III ....................................................... 8 1. Lummi I ...................................................................................... 9 2. Lummi II ................................................................................... 10 3. Lummi III .................................................................................. 12 C. Decision on Remand and This Appeal ............................................... 16 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 19 S’KLALLAM ARGUMENT ON CROSS-APPEAL ............................................. 21 I. The District Court Erroneously Denied Leave to Amend the RFD ............. 21 A. There is no jurisdictional barrier to amending the RFD .................... 22 B. The proposed amended RFD states a claim under 25(a)(1) ............... 26 C. Amendment would not prejudice the Lower Elwha or the Lummi ................................................................................................ 28 Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 4 of 81 II. The S’Klallam Should At Least Be Permitted to File a New RFD .............. 31 III. Regardless of the Method of Proceeding, It Is Important to Determine the Western Boundary of the Lummi U&A ................................ 33 A. The western boundary of the Lummi U&A remains undefined ............................................................................................ 35 B. The boundary of the Lummi U&A is capable of precise definition ............................................................................................ 39 RESPONSE TO THE LUMMI AND LOWER ELWHA POSITIONS ................. 42 I. The Lummi’s Position Should Be Rejected ................................................. 42 II. The Lower Elwha’s Position Should Be Rejected ....................................... 53 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 55 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM ii Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 5 of 81 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................22 DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................22 Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 21, 22 Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, 694 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1982) ...............................................................................17 Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................22 Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe, 873 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 39, 52, 54 Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989) ............................................................................................40 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 141 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................41 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 234 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................41 Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................22 Tulalip Tribes v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 794 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................50 United States v. Lummi Nation, 876 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... passim United States v. Lummi Nation, 763 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... passim iii Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 6 of 81 United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... passim United States v. Washington, No. C70-9213RSM, 2019 WL 5963052 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2019) ...................................................................................................................49 United States v. Washington, 20 F. Supp. 3d 899 (W.D. Wash. 2008) .................................................. 11, 29, 40 United States v. Washington, 20 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Wash. 2007) ..............................................................37 United States v. Washington, 18 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (W.D. Wash. 1991) ...........................................................7, 8 United States v. Washington, 18 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (W.D. Wash. 1987) ..................................................... passim United States v. Washington, 626 F. Supp. 1405 (W.D. Wash. 1985) .............................................. 8, 15, 35, 40 United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978) ....................................................... passim United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974).......................................................... passim Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 871 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................49 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 13, 49, 50 Statute 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ............................................................................................40 Other Authorities 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927 .........................................................5, 6 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933 .............................................. 5, 6, 34 iv Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 7 of 81 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ............................................................................................21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...................................................................................................28 v Case: 19-35611, 02/18/2020, ID: 11599180, DktEntry: 34, Page 8 of 81 INTRODUCTION For generations, the Jamestown S’Klallam and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes have fished the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a strait off the Pacific Ocean bordered on the south by the Olympic Peninsula, site of the S’Klallam’s ancestral homes. Fishing those waters is an historic way of life for S’Klallam tribe members, as well as a source of livelihood. The importance to the S’Klallam of their continued right