In the second supplemental proceeding regarding these three disputed areas, the Ninth Circuit held that the Lummi Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds included Admiralty Inlet, but did not include the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the mouth of Hood Canal.[1] This appeal involved the scope of treaty-reserved fishing rights secured by the Lummi Indian Tribe in the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott.[2] The Lower Elwha Band of S'Klallams, the Jamestown Band of S'Klallams, the Port Gamble Band of S'Klallams, and the Skokomish Indian Tribe (collectively "Four Tribes") initiated this action to determine the extent of the Lummi Tribe's "usual and accustomed grounds and stations."[3]

Almost fifteen years after the Boldt Decision, the Four Tribes initiated this request for a determination of fishing rights, pursuant to the ongoing jurisdiction of the District Court for the Western District of Washington.[4] The Four Tribes sought a declaration that the Lummi Tribe was violating the Boldt Decision by fishing in the three disputed areas. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Four Tribes in 1990, but did not enter a final judgment. The Lummi Tribe filed an amended response to the Four Tribes' request for a determination and a cross-request for a determination that the Lummi Tribe's usual and accustomed grounds should be expanded to include the three disputed areas. After a lengthy delay in the litigation, the district court eventually dismissed the case in 1998, applying the law of the case doctrine and accepting the 1990 conclusion that Judge Boldt did not intend the Lummi Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, or the mouth of the Hood Canal.[5] The Lummi Tribe appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Four Tribes urged the Ninth Circuit to deny review, arguing that the 1990 decision was final and that the 1998 application of the law of the case doctrine insulated the earlier order from review.[6] The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments, reasoning first that Rule 58[7] protects parties from uncertainty, and since the district court did not enter a separate document in 1990, that order was not final.[8] The Ninth Circuit also rejected the Four Tribes' second claim, noting that the 1990 decision, which was not final, merged into the final judgment entered in 1998.[9] Furthermore, the court rejected the Lummi's contention that the district court improperly refused to disturb its earlier decision.

The Ninth Circuit then addressed the merits of the appeal. After deciding that Judge Boldt's language was ambiguous, the court reviewed the evidence that the district court used to determine the intent of the Boldt Decision.[10] In addition to looking at the exhibits presented to Judge Boldt, the district court also received new testimony from an anthropologist who had testified as an expert witness in the Boldt Decision.[11] The anthropologist's new testimony indicated that at the time of the Boldt Decision, she did not intend for her report's reference to Haro, Rosario, and Georgia Straits to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and she had not expressed any conclusion as to whether the Lummi Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds extended to Admiralty Inlet. She also testified that she was unable to form a conclusion regarding the three disputed areas, but that she did not consider the term "Northern Puget Sound" to include the three disputed areas.[12]

The Lummi Tribe argued that the district court improperly considered the anthropologist's testimony because it constituted the type of latter-day testimony that the Ninth Circuit admonished in Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe.[13] The Ninth Circuit disagreed, noting that the district court focused directly on the exhibits attached to the anthropologist's testimony, which were presented to Judge Boldt.[14] The Lummi next argued that the district court erred by not considering all of the evidence before Judge Boldt in proper context, contending that Judge Boldt defined the fishing areas in broad and general ways that included the three disputed areas. The court also rejected this argument, noting that the specific evidence submitted to Judge Boldt supported the district court's interpretation of the Boldt Decision.[15] The Ninth Circuit further stated that it was reasonable to conclude that Judge Boldt relied on the expert opinion, rather than on testimony from Lummi elders, to determine the usual and accustomed fishing grounds.[16]

In short, the Ninth Circuit held that the term "Puget Sound" does not include the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Hood Canal because Judge Boldt distinguished between these terms throughout the Boldt Decision.[17] However, the court noted that the Boldt Decision contained no references to Admiralty Inlet. The Ninth Circuit rejected the Four Tribes' argument that Judge Boldt recognized Admiralty Inlet as a separate region from Puget Sound because he did not expressly name that region within the Lummi's usual and accustomed fishing grounds. In reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Boldt intended to include Admiralty Inlet within the Lummi Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds because the Lummi would have to travel through the Inlet to reach the present environs of Seattle.[18]