United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), commonly known as the Boldt Decision (from the name of the trial court judge, George Hugo Boldt), is a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.
As the time went by, the State of Washington had infringed on the treaty rights of the tribes despite losing a series of court cases on the issue. Those cases provided the Indian tribal members a right of access through private property to their fishing locations, and said that the state could neither charge the Indians a fee to fish nor discriminate against the tribes in the method of fishing allowed. Those cases also provided for the Indian tribes rights to a fair and equitable share of the harvest. The Boldt decision further defined that reserved right, holding that the tribes were entitled to half the fish harvest each year.
In 1975, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Boldt's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. After the state refused to enforce the court order, Judge Boldt ordered the United States Coast Guard and federal law enforcement agencies to enforce his rulings. On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court rejected a collateral attack on the case, largely endorsing Judge Boldt's ruling and the opinion of the Ninth Circuit. In Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "[b]oth sides have a right, secured by treaty, to take a fair share of the available fish."Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 , 684–85 (1979). The Supreme Court also endorsed Boldt's orders to enforce his rulings using federal law enforcement assets and the Coast Guard. The case remains active and is still litigated in 2026.
Background
History of tribal fishing The American Indians of the Pacific Northwest had long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource that allowed them to become among the wealthiest North American tribes.Michael C. Blumm and Brett M. Swift, The Indian Treaty Piscary Profit and Habitat Protection in the Pacific Northwest: A Property Rights Approach , 69 407, 421 (1998). The salmon harvest for the Columbia River basin was estimated at annually,Blumm, at 421. which provided sufficient salmon not only for the tribes' needs but also to trade with others. By the 1840s, tribes were trading salmon to the Hudson's Bay Company, which shipped the fish to New York, Great Britain, and other locations around the world.Blumm, at 424.
Treaties
In the 1850s, the US government entered into a series of treaties with the American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest. In the Treaty of Olympia,Treaty of Olympia, July 1, 1855, and Jan. 25, 1856, ratified Mar. 8, 1859, ; 2 719, (Charles J. Kappler, ed. 1904). Territorial Governor Isaac I. Stevens agreed that the tribes had rights, including:
Other agreements with area tribes included the treaties of Medicine Creek,Treaty of Medicine Creek, Dec. 26, 1854, ratified Mar. 3, 1855, ; Kappler, at 661. Point Elliott,Treaty of Point Elliot, Jan. 22, 1855, ratified Mar. 8, 1859, ; Kappler, at 669. Neah Bay,Treaty of Neah Bay, Jan. 31, 1855, ratified Mar. 8, 1859, ; Kappler, at 682. and Point No Point.Treaty of Point No Point, Jan. 26, 1855, ratified Mar. 8, 1859, ; Kappler, at 664. All of them had similar language on the rights of the tribes to fish outside the reservation.United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 , 331 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (hereinafter cited as "Boldt decision"); , at 186–87. While the tribes agreed to part with their land, they insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout the Washington Territory., at 186–87; , 83 (2009); Blumm, at 430.
Post-treaty history Initially, the federal government honored its treaties with the tribes, but with increasing numbers of white settlers moving into the area, the settlers began to infringe upon the fishing rights of the native tribes. By 1883, whites had established more than forty salmon canneries.Blumm, at 434. In 1894, there were three canneries in the Puget Sound area; by 1905, there were twenty-four., at 84; Blumm, at 430. The whites also began to use new techniques, which prevented a significant portion of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas.Blumm, at 434 ("Whites also effectively preempted upriver tribal fisheries by securing a locational advantage. . ."). When Washington Territory became a state in 1889, the legislature passed "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries."Blumm, at 435; see generally , at 85. The state legislature, by 1897, had banned the use of weirs, which were customarily used by Indians fishermen.Fronda Woods, Who's in Charge of Fishing?, 106 412, 415 (2005). The tribes turned to the courts for enforcement of their rights under the treaties.Blumm, at 435.
United States v. Taylor In one of the earliest of the enforcement cases,United States v. Taylor, 13 P. 333 (Wash. Terr. 1887). decided in 1887, the United States Indian agent and several members of the Yakama tribe filed suit in territorial court to enforce their right of access to off-reservation fishing locations. Frank Taylor, a non-Indian settler, had obtained land from the United States and had fenced off the land, preventing access by the Yakama to their traditional fishing locations., 33 (2003); Blumm, at 436; Vincent Mulier, Recognizing the Full Scope of the Right to Take Fish under the Stevens Treaties: The History of Fishing Rights Litigation in the Pacific Northwest, 31 41, 44–45 (2006–2007). Although the trial court ruled in Taylor's favor, the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington reversed, at 33; Mulier, at 45. and held that the tribe had reserved its own rights to fish, thereby creating an easement or an equitable servitude of the land that was not extinguished when Taylor obtained title.Taylor, 13 P. at 336; Blumm, at 436–38; Mulier, at 46.
United States v. Winans
Within ten years, another case arose,United States v. Winans, . which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location. Two brothers, Lineas and Audubon Winans, owned property on both sides of the Columbia River and obtained licenses from the State of Washington to operate four fish wheels.Blumm, at 440; Mulier, at 46. The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon from passing the location. Additionally, the Winans prohibited anyone, whether an Indian with treaty rights or otherwise, from crossing their land to get to the falls.
The United States Attorney for Washington then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe. The trial court held that the property rights of the Winans allowed them to exclude others from the property, including Indians.Blumm, at 440; Mulier, at 47. In 1905, the United States Supreme Court reversed that decision by holding that the tribe had reserved fishing rights when they ceded the property to the United States.Winans, 198 U.S. at 371; , at 33; Blumm, at 441. Since the tribes had the right to fish reserved in the treaties, the federal government and subsequent owners had no greater property rights than were granted by the treaties.Winans, 198 U.S. at 381; Blumm, at 442–43; Mulier, at 48.
Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States In 1914, the United States sued again,Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919). this time against the Seufert Brothers Company, which had prevented Yakama Indians including Sam Williams from fishing on the Oregon side of the Columbia River near the Celilo Falls.Seufert Bros. Co., 249 U.S. at 195; Blumm, at 446. After the United States sued on behalf of Williams, the United States District Court in Oregon issued an injunction which the Supreme Court affirmed, again holding that the treaties created a servitude that ran with the land.Seufert Bros., 249 U.S. at 199; Blumm, at 447. The decision was significant in that it expanded the hunting and fishing rights outside the territory ceded by the tribes when it was shown that the tribe had used the area for hunting and fishing.Blumm, at 440; Mulier, at 50.
State attempts to regulate Indian tribes fishing
Tulee v. Washington
In Tulee v. Washington,Tulee v. Washington, (hereinafter cited as Tulee III). the United States Supreme Court once again ruled on the treaty rights of the Yakama tribe. In 1939, Sampson Tulee, a Yakama, was arrested for fishing without a state fishing license.Tulee II, 109 P.2d at 280; , at 85. The United States government immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus on Tulee's behalf, which was denied on procedural grounds because he had not yet been tried in state court and had not exhausted his appeals.United States in Behalf of Tulee v. House, 110 F.2d 797, 798 (9th Cir. 1940) (hereinafter cited as Tulee I). Tulee was convicted in state court, which was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed it to impose a fee on Indians who were fishing outside the reservation.Tulee II, 109 P.2d at 141; Blumm, at 448. The United States Supreme Court reversed, stating "we are of the opinion that the state is without power to charge the Yakamas a fee for fishing".Tulee III, 315 U.S. at 685; see generally , at 85; Blumm, at 448–49.
Puyallup cases Following the Tulee decision, there were three United States Supreme Court decisions involving the Puyallup tribe. The first was Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, (Puyallup I)Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game of Washington, (hereinafter cited as Puyallup I). which involved a state ban on the use of nets to catch steelhead trout and salmon. Despite the ban, the tribes continued to use nets based on their treaty rights.Puyallap I, 391 U.S. at 396; Blumm, at 449. Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion of the court which said that the treaty did not prevent state regulations that were reasonable and necessary under a fish conservation scheme, provided the regulation was not discriminatory.Puyallap I, 391 U.S. at 398; Blumm, at 449–50.
After being remanded to determine if the regulations were not discriminatory, the case returned to the United States Supreme Court in Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe (Puyallyp II).Dept. of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe, (hereinafter cited as Puyallup II). Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion for the court, but this time he struck down the state restrictions as discriminatory.Puyallup II, 414 U.S. at 48; Blumm, at 451. Douglas noted that the restrictions for catching steelhead trout with nets had remained, and was a method used only by the tribes, whereas hook and line fishing was allowed but was used only by non-tribal people.Mulier, at 52. As such, the effect of the regulation allocated all of the steelhead trout fishing to sport anglers, and none to the tribes.Puyallup II, 414 U.S. at 48; , 453-54 (1997); Blumm, at 451; Mulier, at 52.