Department of Game of the State of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe (Puyallup II)
United States Supreme Court
414 U.S. 44 (1973)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
An 1854 treaty granted the Puyallup Tribe (defendant) the right to fish for salmon and steelhead trout in their accustomed areas, which included areas outside of the Puyallup reservation. The State of Washington Department of Game (plaintiff), which had regulatory jurisdiction over the trout, prohibited the use of a type of net that the Puyallups customarily used. The Department of Game brought suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Both the trial court and the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ability to regulate the Puyallups’ fishing activities, though the supreme court remanded the case for further inquiry into the reasonableness of the anti-net regulation. The United States Supreme Court affirmed. The State of Washington Department of Fisheries, which had jurisdiction over the salmon, changed its regulation to allow for net fishing by the Puyallups. However, the Department of Game continued to prohibit net fishing of steelhead trout. In another round of litigation, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the Department of Game’s regulation, finding that hook-and-line fishing by sports fishermen left an insufficient number of steelhead trout to allow for net fishing by anyone. The Puyallups again appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.