Case: 20-35346, 07/31/2020, ID: 11773628, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 68 Appeal Nos. 20-35346, 20-35353 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SNOQUALMIE INDIAN TRIBE, a federally recognized Indian tribe on its own behalf and as parens patriae on behalf of its members Plaintiff-Appellant, SAMISH INDIAN NATION, Intervenor-Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; and GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE and WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DIRECTOR KELLY SUSEWIND, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Court Judge Case No. 3:19-cv-06227-RBL APPELLANT SNOQUALMIE INDIAN TRIBE’S OPENING BRIEF Rob Roy Smith, WSBA No. 33798 Claire R. Newman, WSBA No. 46200 Rachel B. Saimons, WSBA No. 46553 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: (206) 467-9600 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe Case: 20-35346, 07/31/2020, ID: 11773628, DktEntry: 12, Page 2 of 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..................................................... x INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ...................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES........................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... 6 1. Brief History of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe .................................. 6 2. United States v. Washington Proceedings Involving Snoqualmie ........................................................................................ 8 3. Snoqualmie Regains Federal Recognition in 1997 ......................... 10 4. The State Refuses to Recognize Snoqualmie’s Treaty Rights ............................................................................................... 13 5. The United States Re-Affirms Snoqualmie’s Treaty Status on the Same Day as the Case Is Dismissed .......................... 14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 18 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 19 I. SNOQUALMIE’S NEVER-LITIGATED TREATY STATUS HUNTING AND GATHERING CLAIMS ARE PERMITTED BY WASHINGTON IV ............................................................................... 19 A. Washington IV Removes the Bar of Preclusion in Cases That Meet Its Three Requirements .................................................. 19 B. The District Court Disregarded Snoqualmie’s Satisfaction of All Three Requirements of Washington IV............. 23 i Case: 20-35346, 07/31/2020, ID: 11773628, DktEntry: 12, Page 3 of 68 C. The Court Below and This Court Are Bound to Follow Washington IV Under Law of the Circuit Doctrine (Stare Decisis) ............................................................................................ 24 II. SNOQUALMIE’S HUNTING AND GATHERING CLAIMS HAVE NEVER BEEN LITIGATED; THUS, THEY ARE NOT PRECLUDED ............................................................................................ 25 A. Issue Preclusion Requires the Court to Determine that Identical Issues Were Actually Litigated in the Prior Proceeding ....................................................................................... 27 B. United States v. Washington Was Explicitly Limited to Fishing ............................................................................................. 30 C. The Issues Actually Litigated in United States v. Washington Were Specific to Fishing, Federal Recognition and Reservation .......................................................... 33 1. Evidence and Testimony at Trial Concerned Fishing ................................................................................... 33 2. The Legal Issues “Actually Litigated” Related to Snoqualmie’s Lack of Federal Recognition and Reservation, Which Have No Bearing on This Case ....................................................................................... 35 D. If Preclusion Bars Snoqualmie’s Claims, Two Exceptions Apply ............................................................................................... 36 1. Washington IV and the U.S. Decision Change the Applicable Legal Context for Establishing Treaty Rights .................................................................................... 37 2. The Third Exception Under the Restatement Applies Due to Inadequate Focus on Snoqualmie’s Case in Washington II ........................................................... 42 III. THE DISTRICT COURT EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY BY ABROGATING SNOQUALMIE’S TREATY RIGHTS ..................................................... 43 ii Case: 20-35346, 07/31/2020, ID: 11773628, DktEntry: 12, Page 4 of 68 IV. THE COURT SHOULD RESOLVE THE STATE’S JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES IN THE TRIBE’S FAVOR ...................................................................................................... 47 A. The District Court Erred When It Failed to Address the State’s Jurisdictional Challenges ..................................................... 47 1. Ex parte Young Permits This Suit Against the State ............ 48 a. The Director Is Not Entitled to Immunity .................. 49 b. The Governor Is Not Entitled to Immunity ................ 49 2. The Tribe Has Standing Based on Defendants’ Deprivation of Treaty Rights ................................................ 50 3. The Injuries Are Directly Traceable to State Conduct ................................................................................. 51 4. The Tribe Has Suffered an Injury in Fact ............................. 52 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 53 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ............................................................... 55 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................... 56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 57 iii Case: 20-35346, 07/31/2020, ID: 11773628, DktEntry: 12, Page 5 of 68 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 580 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................................................48 Baker v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 6 F.3d 632 (9th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................24 Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................51 Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947) .............................................................................................46 Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948) .............................................................................................28 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (1876) ...............................................................................................28 Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................18 Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................28 Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................18 Eureka Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 873 F.2d 229 (9th Cir. 1989)................................................................................36 Evans v. Salazar, 604 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................... 1 Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ...................................................................................... 48, 50 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) ...................................................................................... 50, 51 iv Case: 20-35346, 07/31/2020, ID: 11773628, DktEntry: 12, Page 6 of 68 Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2016)................................................................................19 Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012)................................................................................24 Green v. Babbitt (Green I), 996 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................... 19, 20 Green v. Babbitt (Green II), 64 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 1995)................................................................................20 Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019) .........................................................................................45 Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................27 In re Fed. Acknowledgment of the Snoqualmie