Here are the materials in Lummi Tribe v. Whidbey Telephone Co. (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
CFC Rejects Dakota “Half-Breeds” Claims against US
Here is the opinion in Smith v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Ninth Circuit Materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi
Swinomish and Squaxin Island Sue over Endangered Species Act Regulatory Change
Here is the complaint in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. National Marine Fisheries Service (W.D. Wash.):
President Trump Revokes Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments Weeks after Tenth Circuit Decision
On July 13, 2026, President Trump issued proclamations revoking the Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
This comes just weeks after the Tenth Circuit reversed the District of Utah’s dismissal of the lawsuits seeking to dismantle the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. The Tenth Circuit’s decision remanded the matter back to the District Court for further proceedings. Here is the briefing from the Tenth Circuit.
Tenth Circuit Decision:
Plaintiff’s Opening Briefs:
Opening Brief of Individual Plaintiffs
Opening Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants Garfield County, Utah, et al.
Response Briefs:
Federal Defendants’ Consolidated Answering Brief
Response Brief of Suwa Intervenors-Appellees
Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, And Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Response Brief
Plaintiffs’ Reply Briefs:
Reply Brief of Individual Plaintiffs
Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants Garfield County, Utah, et al.
Sauk-Suiattle Sues State of Washington in Tribal Court Over Denial of State Social Services Benefits
Here are the materials in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. Ferguson:
From the tribe’s legal counsel:
The civil action (No. SAU-civ-07/26-002) seeks to enjoin various officials of the State of Washington from deducting nominal property of $300 ($450 to Elders) which the tribe provides to its members and applying the value of such property to reduce or deny eligibility for certain programs which the tribe’s people otherwise entitled.
Trump v. IRS Decision (Not an Indian Law Case, or is it?)
Here is the order in Trump v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) dismissing the case in which DOJ agreed to pay the Trump family and business $1.776 Billion and sanctioning DOJ attorneys who signed off on the “settlement”:
Lots of discussion of Muskrat v. US (a Fed Courts standby) and the Keepseagle settlement:
Meghan Gupta on History and Tradition in Federal Indian Law
Meghanlata Gupta has published “‘In Keeping with the Constitution’s Original Design”: History and Tradition in Federal Indian Law” in the Public Land & Resources Law Review.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Here is the abstract:
This Article examines the Supreme Court’s use of history and tradition in federal Indian law. In recent years, the Court has increasingly relied on Founding-era practices and historical traditions to determine constitutional meaning in areas such as firearm regulation, substantive due process, and religious liberty. At the same time, while the Founding-era record contains substantial evidence that Native nations were understood and treated as independent, sovereign political communities, this evidence has not yet been fully incorporated into the Supreme Court’s Indian law jurisprudence. Examining decisions from Oliphant to Castro-Huerta, this Article describes the Court’s approaches to historical analysis in Indian law cases and identifies areas where deeper engagement with the historical record could inform the doctrine. By centering Indian law within the broader history-and-tradition framework, this Article argues that more consistent applications of history support the robust conception of tribal sovereignty contemplated at the Founding.
DOJ Hiring in the Tribal Resources Section
Here:
One or more positions may be filled in either Washington DC or Denver. The first cut-off date for referral of applicants will be 7/27/2026. The second cut-off date will be on the closing date of 8/17/2026.
The Tribal Resource Section (TRS) litigates to uphold and fulfill the United States’ trust responsibility to the nation’s 575 federally recognized Indian tribes. This includes defending the decisions of the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act in furtherance of tribal interests, as well as bringing civil affirmative actions to protect tribal lands, rights, resources, and jurisdiction. This litigation furthers the United States’ government-to-government relationships with tribal nations and generally promotes tribal sovereignty, protects tribal land bases, and ensures legal rights guaranteed by treaties and other reserved rights, such as water rights, reservation boundaries, hunting and fishing rights, and federal and tribal jurisdiction. The litigation handled by the Section is of vital interest to Indian tribes and often addresses issues of first impression.
Consistent with the Tribal Resources Section’s practice, the individual selected will be responsible for handling a range of matters, including some of the most complex and important cases currently arising in this area of the law. This position will allow the individual to utilize his or her superior legal research, writing, and oral advocacy skills in all aspects of negotiation, motions practice, and trial.
Wilton Rancheria Files Cert Petition in Labor Dispute
Here is the petition in Wilton Rancheria v. UNITE HERE:
Question presented:
Notwithstanding the deference afforded to arbitration awards, arbitrators lack the power to facially invalidate federal and state statutes. Similarly, courts defer to Tribal interpretation of Tribal law, as a critical element of longstanding policies upholding and safeguarding Tribal sovereignty. Does an arbitrator exceed his authority when he facially invalidates a duly-enacted Tribal law, especially when a court would not do so and when he would not be permitted to invalidate a duly-enacted federal or state statute?
Lower court materials here. Ninth Circuit unpublished opinion here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.