This article is a legal analysis of the elements of the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada Marshall decisions, which affirmed Donald Marshall’s treaty right to fish and sell his catch. Despite the court’s decision, Mi’kmaw are continually charged by the Crown in its efforts to manage the fishery. The fishery rights in question claimed by Mi’kmaw and other Indigenous groups in Atlantic Canada are based on promises made in the non-ceding Peace and Friendship Treaties. It is argued that the courts and others give insufficient consideration to the distinction between ceding and non-ceding treaties, the considerations of governance, and the specific promises made in these treaties. A civil action initiated by the appropriate group against the Crown is suggested as a measure that would permit the courts to address many of the outstanding issues and serve as an important step toward eliminating conflict and violence in the fisheries.