The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government.

On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court rejected a collateral attack[fn 1] on the case, largely endorsing Judge Boldt's ruling and the opinion of the Ninth Circuit.

[fn 2] By the 1840s, tribes were trading salmon to the Hudson's Bay Company, which shipped the fish to New York, Great Britain, and other locations around the world.

In the Treaty of Olympia,[6] Territorial Governor Isaac I. Stevens[fn 3] agreed that the tribes had rights, including: The right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations is secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing the same; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on all open and unclaimed lands.

[17] When Washington Territory became a state in 1889, the legislature passed "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries.

Two brothers, Lineas and Audubon Winans, owned property on both sides of the Columbia River and obtained licenses from the State of Washington to operate four fish wheels.

[34] In 1914, the United States sued again,[35] this time against the Seufert Brothers Company, which had prevented Yakama Indians including Sam Williams from fishing on the Oregon side of the Columbia River near the Celilo Falls.

[49] After being remanded to determine if the regulations were not discriminatory, the case returned to the United States Supreme Court in Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe (Puyallyp II).

[51] Douglas noted that the restrictions for catching steelhead trout with nets had remained, and was a method used only by the tribes, whereas hook and line fishing was allowed but was used only by non-tribal people.

Members of the Puyallup Tribe filed suit, arguing that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Washington state courts lacked jurisdiction to regulate fishing activities on tribal reservations.

[56] One year after the Puyallup I decision, Judge Robert C. Belloni issued an order in Sohappy v. Smith,[57] a treaty fishing case involving the Yakama tribe and the state of Oregon.

Its selection of regulations to achieve these objectives is limited only by its own organic law and the standards of reasonableness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

But when it is regulating the federal right of Indians to take fish at their usual and accustomed places it does not have the same latitude in prescribing the management objectives and the regulatory means of achieving them.

"[69] The court held that when the tribes conveyed millions of acres of land in Washington State through a series of treaties signed in 1854 and 1855, they reserved the right to continue fishing.

[fn 15] The order required the state to limit the amount of fish taken by non-Indian commercial fishermen, causing a drop in their income from about $15,000–20,000 to $500–2000.

[73] Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish.

[81] He held that the district court's apportionment "was well within its discretion" but clarified that tribes were not entitled to compensation for "unanticipated heavy fishing" that occurred off Washington's coast.

[81] Judge Choy also clarified that the district court's equitable remedy should attempt to minimize hardships for white reef net fishermen.

"[84] In his concluding remarks, Judge Burns argued that Washington's responsibility to manage its natural resources "should neither escape notice nor be forgotten.

"[fn 17][97] When the state would not enforce his order to reduce the catch of non-Indian commercial fishermen, Boldt took direct action by placing the matter under federal supervision.

[98] The United States Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service were ordered to enforce the ruling and soon had boats in the water confronting violators.

[100] Those whom the officers caught breaking the court's orders were taken before federal magistrates and fined for contempt, and the illegal fishing as a protest stopped.

In what became known as "Phase II",[104] District Judge William H. Orrick, Jr. heard the issues presented by the United States on behalf of the tribes.

On August 22, 2007, the district court issued a summary judgment order, holding that while culverts impeding anadromous fish migration are not the only factor diminishing their upstream habitat, in building and maintaining culverts that impede salmon migration, Washington State had diminished the size of salmon runs within the case area and thereby violated its obligation under the Stevens Treaties.

[fn 18][115] By 1978, Representative John E. Cunningham tried to get a bill passed to abrogate the treaties, to break up Indian tribal holdings, and stop giving the tribes "special consideration", but the effort failed.

[116] In 1984, Washington voters passed an initiative ending "special rights" for Indians,[117] but the state refused to enforce it as being pre-empted by federal law.

[116] United States v. Washington was a landmark case in terms of Native American civil rights and evoked strong emotions.

According to former U.S. Representative Lloyd Meeds of Everett, "the fishing issue was to Washington state what busing was to the East" for African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement.

[120] The Makah tribe, based on the terms of the Neah Bay Treaty and the Boldt decision, took their first California gray whale in over 70 years in 1999.