What is the question presented in Washington v. United States?

1. Whether the treaty "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common with all citizens" guaranteed "that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a 'moderate living' to the Tribes."? 2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the State's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850's, for decades told the State to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violated the treaties it signed. 3. Whether the district court's injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon and Plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.

What is Washington v. United States about?

This case is about whether treaties guaranteeing Northwest tribes the right to fish at their usual places require Washington to fix or replace state road culverts that block salmon from reaching tribal fishing grounds. The Ninth Circuit said the treaties protect enough fish to provide the tribes a moderate living, and the Supreme Court later affirmed that ruling by an equally divided Court.

No. 17-269October Term 2017Decided Jun 11, 2018

Docket 17-269October Term 2017 (2017–2018)

Washington v. United States

Washington lost at the Supreme Court, so the lower-court ruling requiring action on fish-blocking culverts stayed in place.

Case status

Current stage: Decided
Latest event: Decision released Jun 11, 2018

Case Accepted

Arguments

Decision ReleasedJun 11, 2018

What it's about: This case is about whether treaties guaranteeing Northwest tribes the right to fish at their usual places require Washington to fix or replace state road culverts that block salmon from reaching tribal fishing grounds. The Ninth Circuit said the treaties protect enough fish to provide the tribes a moderate living, and the Supreme Court later affirmed that ruling by an equally divided Court.
Question presented
1. Whether the treaty "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common with all citizens" guaranteed "that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a 'moderate living' to the Tribes."? 2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the State's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850's, for decades told the State to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violated the treaties it signed. 3. Whether the district court's injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon and Plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.
Case path: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released Jun 11, 2018
Area: Decided Supreme Court case

Briefing

What it's about

The case asked whether treaties protecting Northwest tribes' fishing rights require Washington to fix state road culverts that block salmon. The Supreme Court split evenly and affirmed the Ninth Circuit, leaving in place the ruling against Washington.

Vote

In a per curiam decision after argument on April 18, 2018, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit by an equally divided Court.

Impact

The case affects tribal fishing rights, salmon habitat, and state spending on road projects. For example, Washington said replacing hundreds of culverts could cost several billion dollars.

What's next

The Supreme Court has finished with this case. The practical next step is carrying out the lower-court order requiring Washington to address culverts that block salmon runs.

What was the core fight in Washington v. United States?

The dispute was whether old treaties guaranteed tribes enough fish for a moderate living. That question shaped whether Washington must fix culverts that block salmon.

Who is affected by the Court's action in this case?

Northwest tribes, state transportation officials, and communities tied to salmon fisheries are directly affected. Culvert work can change fish access and state construction budgets.

What happens next after the Supreme Court's June 11, 2018 action?

The Supreme Court is done with this docket. Washington must deal with the lower-court order that remains in force after the tie.

Decision

Decision recordJun 11, 2018

What the Court decided

Washington lost at the Supreme Court, so the lower-court ruling requiring action on fish-blocking culverts stayed in place.

Result: Affirmed

Impact

The case affects tribal fishing rights, salmon habitat, and state spending on road projects. For example, Washington said replacing hundreds of culverts could cost several billion dollars.

Not official Court text.

Opinion documents

Opinion

Documents

Opinions

Opinion

Key filings

Questions Presented

View full docket on supremecourt.gov

Related cases

Illustration for Jeffrey Clyde Pitts, Petitioner v. Mississippi

Docket 24-1159Jeffrey Clyde Pitts, Petitioner v. MississippiDecided Nov 24, 2025

Illustration for Hughes Transportation, Inc. v. United States

Docket 25-52Hughes Transportation, Inc. v. United StatesDecided Nov 24, 2025

Illustration for John Doe, Petitioner v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC, et al.

Docket 25-180John Doe, Petitioner v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC, et al.Decided Dec 8, 2025

Illustration for Michael Bowe, Petitioner v. United States

Docket 24-5438Michael Bowe, Petitioner v. United StatesDecided Jan 9, 2026

View the full docket

Grounding

Grounding: Primary materials plus reporting.
Note: Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked: Jul 2, 2026
Method: Methodology

Primary materials8

Context reporting3