Talk:United States v. Washington

Held for 30 Years?
The case has significant negative citation history - while it may still be narrow law (and I am not sure of even that), I think it might be deceptive to say that it has held for 30 years. Is anyone more familiar with this case in a position to set me straight here? Editor Emeritus 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is accurate to say that this case has held. It is a case of continuing jurisdiction with multiple subproceedings being filed annually to fine tune it or interpret the many areas where the original decision was not able to provide guidance.  Today, the orginal decision has been extended to shellfish harvest and its principals have been applied to off-reservation treaty hunting as well.  It is alive and well. [Prof. Ron Whitener, Univ. of Washington Law School]

Source for expansion
This book, much of which is online in Google Books, has lots of info about this case:

-Pete (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Appellate history
This article does not list anything about the appellate history - unless there is objection, I will work on restructuring the article to show this history. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Text of decision?
Is the text of Boldt's decision available online anywhere? And if not, does anyone know where best to look for a copy? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/BoldtDecision8.5x11layoutforweb.pdf. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Washington --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Article maintenance
I have just gone through the article and made a number of minor edits, mostly to correct good-faith attempts to improve the article. The key thing I noted is the change of the ". . ." (Bluebook citation ellipsis) to the common "..." ellipsis. GregJackP  Boomer!   17:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Should Sohappy v. Smith be merged here, or kept and improved?
This article is promarily about the Boldt Decision, but when it comes to fishing rights in the PNW, it seems that the Belloni Decision, coming from Sohappy v. Smith a few years prior, is similarly important legal precedent.

Recently Sohappy v. Smith was proposed for deletion. As a result, and I have explored that case and its connections to this one. We're both a little uncertain: Is the best approach to merge what little content exists there into this article, and redirect here, or to build out that article to be a little more thorough? It seems as though one or the other of those approaches is needed, as the current stub-like article is not particularly informative, and even lead me (the creator of that article) to get confused between United States v. Washington and United States v. Oregon. Neither of us are expert in complex legal cases, so some help from someone more conversant in this area would be most welcome.

Please see the proposed merge section on that article's talk page. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New Book out on Case
Treaty Justice: The Northwest Tribes, the Boldt Decision, and the Recognition of Fishing Rights is a new (2024) book out by Charles Wilkerson whose previous book is cited in the article. There is a lot of information in the book and footnotes if anyone is looking to update or expand this article. @Auldhouse Auldhouse (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)