Its fairly clear that this is a hostile opinion. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the statement that they are not bound by a court decision because they were not party to it. They clearly had the right to adjoin the tribe at the time and felt no need. Furthermore, as guardians for the tribes, it would only stand to reason that if they found the decision in error they would have been obligated to appeal it further. Since all claims of the BIA would have to be done under the authority as a guardian for the tribe, I fail to see their reasoning. All facts would be the same. Basically it appears the BIA is saying it could ignore the decision in France, since they were not specifically included, and give the tidelands back to the tribe. This is quite different then just saying they feel the case does not apply. Are they really saying that if Skokomish vs. France actually applies, they can just ignore it and force the state to sue for ownership,with the tribe's only claim having already been determined by the ninth circuit to be in error?