Tulee v. Washington
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 681 (1942)
Facts
In 1855 the Yakima tribe of Indians (the Yakima) entered into a treaty with the United States by which it reserved the right to fish in the usual and accustomed places, which included fishing spaces outside the reservation. [Ed’s note: Yakima Nation is now officially named the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.] Yakima records related to the treaty confirmed the desire of the tribe to preserve access to customary fishing spaces. Sampson Tulee (defendant) was a member of the Yakima and was convicted of fishing without a license outside the reservation. Tulee appealed his conviction, arguing that the place where he was fishing was a usual and accustomed fishing place outside the Yakima reservation and, pursuant to the 1855 treaty, he had an unrestricted right to fish there that could not be subject to a state licensing requirement. The state of Washington (plaintiff) argued that its broad authority to regulate fishing to promote conservation outside the reservation justified the licensing requirement and that this requirement did not discriminate against the Yakima but was instead applicable to all people equally. The licensing fees were one method used to support the state’s conservation program and applied to all license applicants. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed Tulee’s conviction, and Tulee appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
