Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Tulee v. Washington

In 1942 the Court held Washington could impose conservation rules on Yakima treaty fishing but could not charge them state license fees.

Citation
315 U.S. 681 (1942)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1942
Nations
Yakama Nation
Treaty at issue
Treaty of 1855 with the Yakama
Holding
Washington may apply nonfee conservation rules to treaty fishing but cannot charge Yakama fishers license fees that burden the treaty right.
Effect on land rights
advanced

What happened

In 1855 the Yakimas and other Indians owned and occupied lands in Washington Territory that the United States wished to open to settlers. Representatives of the Government met in council with representatives of the Indians on May 29, 1855. After discussions lasting until June 11, the Indians agreed to a treaty. They were to cede 16,920 square miles of their territory and keep 1,233 square miles for the confederated tribes. In return the Government agreed to pay $200,000, build schools, shops and mills and a hospital, and provide teachers and helpers for twenty years.

The treaty reserved to tribal members the right to take fish "at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens" of Washington Territory.

Sampson Tulee, a member of the Yakima tribe, was convicted in Klickitat County, Washington, of catching salmon with a net without first obtaining a state license. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed. Tulee argued the state license law conflicted with the treaty.

On March 30, 1942, Justice Black wrote for the Supreme Court that the State may impose on the Indians, equally with others, restrictions "of a purely regulatory nature" about the time and manner of fishing outside the reservation that are needed to conserve fish. But the State "can not require them to pay license fees that are both regulatory and revenue-producing." The Court reversed the state judgment.

Good to know. The opinion spells the nation 'Yakima'; this site uses 'Yakama.'

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. it can not require them to pay license fees that are both regulatory and revenue-producingTulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. the Government agreed to pay $200,000Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. convicted in the Superior Court for Klickitat County, Washington, on a charge of catching salmon with a netTulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The treaty is called the Treaty of May 29, 1855 in the opinion; the atlas page lists it as the 1855 treaty with the Yakama (spelled Yakima in the opinion).

Treaty under documented pressureShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 3

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/681/legal text copy
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record