## Facts

- In 1854–1855, the United States entered treaties with several tribes in the Washington Territory under which tribes ceded land but reserved “the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations … in common with all citizens of the Territory.”
- By the mid-20th century, salmon and steelhead runs declined, and Washington’s regulatory regime increasingly limited tribal harvests.
- In 1970, the United States sued Washington in federal court (on its own behalf and as trustee for tribes) seeking an interpretation of the treaty fishing clause and relief requiring protection of tribes’ treaty fishing rights.
- The federal district court held the treaties guarantee tribes a quantified share of harvestable anadromous fish runs passing through their usual and accustomed fishing areas, generally 45%–50% on a river-by-river, run-by-run basis, with adjustments.
- After appellate proceedings and implementation efforts, the Washington Supreme Court concluded state agencies could not comply because, in its view, the treaties did not confer a right to a share of runs.
- The federal district court issued additional orders supervising aspects of the fishery and enjoining conduct (including by non-party fishers) that interfered with the treaty allocation; the Ninth Circuit upheld these measures.
- The Supreme Court reviewed consolidated matters challenging (a) the treaty interpretation and allocation, and (b) the district court’s remedial authority and power to bind non-parties.

## Issues

1. Whether the treaty phrase “in common with” secures only access and equal opportunity under nondiscriminatory state regulation, or a quantifiable tribal share of each anadromous fish run.
2. If a quantifiable share exists, whether allocating up to roughly 50% of the harvestable portion of each run to treaty tribes is a permissible measure.
3. Whether state-law limits on the authority of Washington’s fish and game agencies can excuse noncompliance with a federal decree interpreting and enforcing treaty rights under the Supremacy Clause.
4. Whether the federal district court exceeded its equitable powers by continuing to supervise fishery management and issuing injunctions that bound non-party fishers whose conduct affected treaty rights.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment sustaining the treaty interpretation and the enforcement orders (6–3, Justice Stevens).
- The treaties secure tribes a right to harvest a share of each anadromous fish run passing through their usual and accustomed fishing areas, not merely access or an equal chance to compete for fish.
- An equitable measure of the “in common with” right is to begin with an approximately equal division of the harvestable portion of each run between treaty and non-treaty fishers, with reduction of the tribal share if tribal needs are satisfied by less.
- Under the Supremacy Clause, state-law barriers cannot prevent state agencies (as parties) from implementing the federal decree interpreting treaty rights.
- The district court’s continuing jurisdiction and equitable remedies, including injunctions affecting non-party fishers whose actions threatened the treaty allocation, were within its authority and did not conflict with international commission regulations.

## Legal Principles

- Indian treaty provisions are construed as the tribes would have understood them, with ambiguities resolved in the tribes’ favor.
- Treaties are treated as reservations of rights by tribes; absent clear relinquishment, reserved rights remain.
- The Stevens Treaties fishing clause protects not only access to fishing places but a meaningful tribal share of harvestable fish runs needed to make the promised right effective.
- A presumptively equitable implementation of “in common with” is an approximate 50/50 division of harvestable fish between treaty and non-treaty fishers, subject to downward adjustment where tribal needs are met with less.
- State conservation and management regulation may operate on treaty fishing only if consistent with treaty rights and not applied in a manner that effectively nullifies the reserved share.
- Federal treaty rights prevail over conflicting state law, and federal courts may use broad equitable relief, including supervision and injunctions, to secure compliance.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Stevens Treaties guarantee Washington tribes a judicially enforceable, quantifiable share of harvestable salmon and steelhead runs at their usual and accustomed fishing areas, generally measured by an initial equal division with adjustments for tribal need, and it upheld robust federal equitable authority—backed by the Supremacy Clause—to compel state implementation and restrain interference with the treaty allocation.


Washington v. Wash. State Com. Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979)