Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 19Necessary and Indispensable PartiesAdministrative ProcedureFed. R. Civ. P. 19necessary partyindispensable partytribal sovereign immunity

Facts

The Makah Tribe has treaty-protected fishing rights in ocean fishing grounds off Washington. Federal regulations under the FCMA set ocean fishing quotas after recommendations by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and action by the Secretary of Commerce; for 1987, the adopted ocean quotas were consistent with a Columbia River Fish Management Plan that anticipated low ocean quotas. The Makah and three other ocean treaty tribes sought higher ocean quotas, but their requests were rejected, and the Secretary's regulations became final after a short comment period. The Makah then sued, asserting both substantive objections to the quota allocation and procedural objections to how the regulations were adopted.

Issue

Whether the twenty-three absent treaty tribes were necessary and indispensable parties under Rule 19 to the Makah's challenge to the 1987 federal salmon quota regulations. More specifically, whether absent tribes were required for both the Makah's substantive request for higher quotas and their procedural claims seeking prospective relief requiring lawful agency procedures.

Rule

Under Rule 19, a court first determines whether an absent party is necessary by asking whether complete relief can be accorded among existing parties and whether the absentee has a legally protected interest that may be impaired or may expose present parties to inconsistent obligations. If joinder is not feasible, the court then determines under Rule 19(b), in equity and good conscience, whether the action should proceed by considering prejudice, the possibility of shaping relief to lessen prejudice, adequacy of the judgment, and the availability of an alternative forum. Absent tribes may be necessary and indispensable where a plaintiff seeks reallocation of a limited harvest affecting other tribes' treaty interests, but they are not necessary to severable procedural APA/FCMA claims seeking only prospective relief directed at the future lawfulness of the administrative process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Quinault Bay Fishing Association sues the Secretary of Marine Resources in federal court in Seattle, alleging that a current federal halibut rule unlawfully shortchanged its members. The association seeks an order directing the Secretary to increase its in-season catch allocation, while several other tribal fishing groups that share the same capped harvest are absent and cannot be joined because they assert sovereign immunity.

In deciding whether the absent tribal fishing groups are necessary parties under Rule 19(a), which is the strongest reason they are necessary?

Explanation. Rule 19(a) first asks whether complete relief can be accorded among existing parties, and that inquiry is distinct from whether absent persons could also obtain relief. When the plaintiff seeks a larger share of a limited harvest, the court cannot practically award that relief without affecting the allocation framework tied to absent tribes’ interests. The majority rejected any automatic rule based solely on immunity, and it also distinguished legally protected interests from mere economic stakes. (Derived from Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity (n.d.).)