## Facts

- In 1836, Ottawa and Chippewa tribes ceded land in what is now Michigan while reserving, by treaty, rights to hunt and fish on the ceded lands and the usual privileges of occupancy until land was required for settlement.
- A long-running federal action filed in 1973 addressed treaty-reserved rights, including earlier determinations concerning Great Lakes fishing, but did not definitively resolve inland (non–Great Lakes) hunting, fishing, and gathering.
- In 2003, Michigan sought a federal determination of the continuing validity and scope of inland treaty rights within the 1836 ceded territory.
- The United States and five tribes (Bay Mills Indian Community; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians) participated as parties asserting treaty-reserved rights.
- The parties negotiated a comprehensive Inland Consent Decree establishing recognition, scope, and regulation of inland hunting, fishing, and gathering rights and submitted it for court approval.
- In 2007, the district court approved and entered the Inland Consent Decree as an enforceable order binding the parties.

## Issues

1. Whether, and to what extent, the 1836 treaty reserves continuing inland rights for tribal members to hunt, fish, and gather within the ceded territory.
2. How such inland treaty rights should be defined geographically and by resource, and coordinated with Michigan’s conservation and regulatory authority.
3. Whether the negotiated Inland Consent Decree should be approved and entered as a final, enforceable judgment governing the parties’ conduct.

## Decision

- The district court approved and entered the Inland Consent Decree resolving the inland treaty-rights dispute for the parties.
- The decree recognized and defined tribal inland hunting, fishing, and gathering rights under the 1836 treaty and set parameters for their exercise.
- The decree established a co-management and regulatory framework allocating responsibilities among the tribes and the State, including provisions addressing conservation, harvest limits, seasons, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms.
- The decree bound the United States, Michigan, the five tribes, and covered officials and persons acting in concert with notice of the decree.
- The court’s disposition reflected entry of a negotiated settlement rather than a full merits adjudication of all disputed legal theories.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may enter a consent decree that functions as a final judgment between the parties on the matters it covers and is enforceable as a court order.
- Treaty-reserved rights may be implemented through detailed remedial frameworks that define permissible locations, methods, and uses while accommodating conservation measures.
- Co-regulatory arrangements may assign governance and enforcement roles to both tribal and state authorities with respect to treaty-based activities, subject to the decree’s terms.
- Binding decree provisions can extend to parties’ officers, employees, agents, successors, and others acting in active concert with actual notice.

## Conclusion

The court’s 2007 order entered a negotiated consent decree that formally recognized and operationalized inland hunting, fishing, and gathering rights reserved by the 1836 treaty, while establishing a detailed co-management system to coordinate tribal exercise of those rights with Michigan’s conservation and regulatory interests.


United States v. Michigan, No. 2:73-cv-00026 (W.D. Mich. 2007)