"fair and equitable share", which they decided to be one-third of the salmon in a run. The United States argued that it gave them 50% of the salmon in a run or to their needs, whichever was lower. The Indian tribes argued that they were entitled to an unlimited share of fish. In the district court, Judge Boldt decided in favor of the Indians. He interpreted the usual and accustomed grounds clause as meaning that the state needed provide Indians with both grounds to fish and a supply of fish to harvest. Washington was required to provide a "moderate living" to the tr ibes, which Boldt decided to be 50% of the fish (taking the United States treaty interpretation). Challenge in State Courts In the following years, the Boldt decision was challenged twice in the State Supreme Court. In Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn. v. Moos and Fishing Vessel Assn. v. Tollefson it was decided the federal injunction could not be followed. This made the state switch to the Game Department's interpretation. Due to conflict between state and federal treaty interpretations, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decisions. References Legal history of Washington (state) Native American history of Washington (state) Fisheries law United States Supreme Court cases United States Native American treaty case law 1979 in Washington (state) United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court