Here is the order.
Cert stage briefs here.

Here is the opinion in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior.
An excerpt:
We conclude that the ISDEAA does not require the DOI to approve Navajo Nation’s funding requests for the years 2017 through 2020 but its regulations do. The 2017 proposal requested “the renewal of a term contract” with “no material [or] substantial change to the scope or funding” of the previous contract, see 25 C.F.R. § 900.33, and the 2018 through 2020 proposals are “successor[s]” to and “substantially the same as” the 2017 proposal, see id. § 900.32. The DOI therefore violated 25 C.F.R. §§ 900.32 and 900.33 when it considered the section 5321(a)(2) declination criteria and partially declined the Tribe’s proposed AFAs. Accordingly, we reverse the district court.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.

Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

Here are details. The highlights re: the writing competition are as follows:

Papers are due May 31, 2023, and must not exceed 20 pages (double-spaced)
Papers can relate to any legal/policy question re: “environmental, energy, or resources legal issues related to Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, other Indigenous peoples, Indigenous peoples generally, and/or the field of Indian and tribal law.”
The first-place winner will receive a $1,000 cash prize.
Here is the fantastic amicus brief on behalf of tribes and tribal orgs written by April Youpee-Roll at Munger and Jason Searle and Beth Wright at NARF:
Here are the other briefs:
Protect the First Amicus Brief
Religious Liberty Scholars Amicus Briefs
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):
This case is on remand after the parties agreed to the vacature of the district court’s dismissal of the suit.
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

Here is the stipulation in Williams & Cochrane LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation (S.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.

Update. Here are recent pleadings from the parties on the substitution of parties that is interesting reading (not all the pleadings are available):
386 Rosette Parties Motion to Substitute [unavailable]
You must be logged in to post a comment.