Precedence:
Commonwealth v. Maxim (1999), two members of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe were charged with violating a local regulation in the town of Bourne that prohibited shell fishing on certain days without a permit. The defendants, Michael Maxim and David Greene, argued that they were exercising their aboriginal fishing rights, which allowed them to fish for sustenance without needing permits.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, recognizing the long-standing acknowledgment of aboriginal rights in Massachusetts. The court found that these rights, which had been preserved in various statutes and executive orders over the years, were not intended to be revoked by more recent regulations. As a result, the court concluded that the town's shell fishing regulations did not apply to the defendants, as they were engaged in sustenance fishing—a right that had been upheld for generations.
Links: http://people.umass.edu/derrico/wampanoag/brief.html
Other cases that have set precedence:
Herrera v. Wyoming (2019) was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the 1868 Treaty between the Crow Tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed tribal members hunting rights on "unoccupied lands" in Wyoming, even after Wyoming became a state. The case involved Clayvin Herrera, a Crow Tribe member, who was charged with hunting elk out of season. The Court determined that statehood did not void the treaty rights, reaffirming that treaties with Native American tribes remain in effect unless explicitly revoked by Congress.
Links: https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/2018/11/30/u-s-supreme-court-hearing-set-for-crow-man-in-case-involving-hunting-treaty-rights/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-532_32q3.pdf
United States v. Winans (1905) was a landmark Supreme Court case involving the Yakama Nation's fishing rights under the Treaty of 1855. The Court ruled in favor of the Yakama, stating that treaty rights granted them the ability to fish at "all usual and accustomed places" outside their reservation, even on privately owned land. The decision reinforced the principle that treaties with Native American tribes must be interpreted in favor of the tribes and upheld their fishing rights, making it a foundational case for tribal sovereignty
Links: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep198/usrep198371/usrep198371.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU_4vRRRjlQ
The Boldt Decision was a landmark legal case decided by U.S. District Judge George Boldt in 1974. This case, formally known as United States v. Washington, reaffirmed the fishing rights of Native American tribes in the Pacific Northwest, specifically those in Washington State. The decision centered around treaties signed in the mid-19th century, in which tribes ceded vast amounts of land to the U.S. government in exchange for the right to continue fishing in their "usual and accustomed places" both on and off reservations.
Key Points:
The ruling recognized that tribal members were entitled to 50% of the annual fish catch in Washington state waters.
Boldt's interpretation clarified that the phrase "in common with" in the treaties meant that Native American tribes had an equal right to fish alongside non-Native Americans, not a subordinate right.
The decision had a significant impact on fisheries management in the region, as it led to the co-management of fishery resources between the state of Washington and tribal governments.
It was met with considerable resistance from non-Native fishers and led to further legal battles, but the ruling has since been upheld in various courts.
The Boldt Decision was pivotal in recognizing tribal sovereignty and the enforcement of treaty rights, setting an important precedent for Native American legal rights in the U.S.
Links: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/indian-resources-section/us-v-washington
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2024%2002%2020%20It%20Happened%20Here%20Boldt%20decision%20affirms%20tribal%20fishing%20rights%20sovereignty.pdf
