Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Klickitat County, Washington, et al. v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 19-35807, 19-35821 · judgment June 11, 2021


Certiorari denied · April 18, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 11% cert probability (95% interval 8%–14%)

Before the decision, about 2.5× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Questions presented

This case concerns a roughly 190-square-mile tract of land in southwestern Washington, which is a mostly non-Indian ranching community adjacent to the Yakama Indian Reservation. In 1904, Congress acted to settle a longstanding dispute between the United States and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation over the boundary established by the 1855 treaty setting aside the Reservation. Act of Dec. 21, 1904, ch 22, 33 Stat. 595

  1. (1904 Act). In doing so, Congress adopted the “findings” of a federal surveyor, E.C. Barnard, concerning the disputed boundary. Id. § 1, 33 Stat. at

  2. It is undisputed that the area at issue lies outside Barnard’s boundary. In 1913, this Court itself confirmed the boundary line drawn by Barnard—and adopted by Congress—in Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 227 U.S. 355, 365-66 (1913). In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit refused to give effect to the boundary line adopted by 1904 Act and recognized by this Court’s 1913 decision. Instead, based on its interpretation of the 1855 treaty establishing the Reservation—some 60 years before Congress acted to settle the disputed boundary—the Ninth Circuit held that the Reservation includes the tract of land at issue. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit also disregarded a physical call in the treaty stating that the boundary of the Reservation runs along the divide of the “Klickatat and Pisco Rivers,” which indisputably is located some fifteen miles north of the area at issue. The questions presented are:

  3. Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may override an Act of Congress adopting a boundary for an Indian reservation, and set its own boundary.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Gregory George Garre
Latham & Watkins LLP

For respondent
Adam G. Unikowsky
Jenner & Block LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Linked docket
21A138

Proceedings

  1. Apr 18 2022
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Mar 29 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
  3. Mar 29 2022
    Reply of petitioners Klickitat County, Washington, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  4. Mar 11 2022
    Brief of respondent Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation in opposition filed.
  5. Feb 09 2022
    Brief amicus curiae of Washington Farm Bureau filed.
  6. Jan 12 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 11, 2022.
  7. Jan 11 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 9, 2022 to March 11, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
  8. Jan 10 2022
    Response Requested. (Due February 9, 2022)
  9. Jan 10 2022
    Supplemental brief of petitioners Klickitat County, Washington, et al. filed.
  10. Dec 29 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
  11. Dec 22 2021
    Waiver of right of respondent Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation to respond filed.
  12. Dec 16 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2022)
  13. Nov 08 2021
    Application (21A138) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 16, 2021.
  14. Nov 04 2021
    Application (21A138) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 16, 2021 to December 16, 2021, submitted to Justice Kagan.