Skagit Indian Tribe v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe

A court must interpret Final Decision I “so as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Narramore v. United States, 852 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1988)).

The Sauk tribe appealed a grant of summary judgment for the Upper Skagit tribe, assigning error to the interpretation of Final Decision I and claiming it was inconsistent with Judge Boldt’s decision. The Sauk tribe argued that in Finding of Fact 131, the Skagit River was included in the Sauk tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing areas (U&As). They believed that Finding of Fact 131 was ambiguous because it listed rivers and creeks that are tributaries to the Skagit River, so it would stand to reason that Judge Boldt intended to include the Skagit River as well. A court must interpret Final Decision I “so as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Narramore v. United States, 852 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1988)). The Court disagreed that Finding of Fact 131 was ambiguous because the text listed three rivers, but it did not include the Skagit River. Judge Boldt also included the Skagit River in other U&As but omitted it from the Sauk tribe’s U&As, which indicated that his omission was intentional. Evidence that Sauk tribal members were distinguished from the main Skagit River’s residents and mostly fished in other locations further supported this conclusion. AFFIRMED.