Fishing rights; Challenges to the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree; Whether the district court had the authority to approve the 2003 Decree without one tribe’s consent; The rule of reason standard established in People v. LeBlanc (MI); “Law of the case”; Whether the district court should have held a trial to resolve objections before entering the 2023 Decree; Requirement that a federal court decree further the objectives of the law upon which the initial complaint was based; Whether the Decree remedied a violation of federal law

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the district court did not require the consent of all the parties before entering the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree, but instead, “properly exercised its continuing jurisdiction and inherent equitable power—just as it had done in 1982, 1983, and 1985—to approve the 2023 Decree.” The 2023 Decree arose from a three-year negotiation between seven sovereign entities, including the United States, the State of Michigan, and several Native American tribes, to resolve differences “in the allocation, management, and regulation of fishing in the Great Lakes waters.” It sought to preserve the Tribes’ treaty-reserved rights as well as “the fishery waters as an ecological resource.” The 2023 Decree followed several prior decrees. Intervenor plaintiff-Sault Ste. Marie Tribe was the only party that refused to stipulate to the new 2023 Decree. Among many objections, it argued that the district court lacked the jurisdiction to enter the Decree without its consent. The district court overruled all the objections and entered the 2023 Decree. On appeal, the court first held that the district court was not required to get the Sault Tribe’s consent before approving the 2023 Decree because it was “not a consent decree; it is a judicial decree imposed pursuant to its decades long continuing jurisdiction and inherent equitable power.” The district court’s broad authority to enter the decree over the Sault Tribe’s objections was supported by “the law of the case.” The court also held that the district court did not err by not conducting a trial to resolve objections before entering the 2023 Decree where neither the court nor the district courts have “required the parties to hold a full trial on fishery allocation, even when a party does not consent to a proposed set of regulations.” In addition, the court concluded that “the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering the 2023 Decree because it remains tailored to further the objectives of the law upon which the initial complaint was based: to ensure that the Tribes’ treaty rights to a scarce natural resource would remain protected.” Affirmed.