Materials in Tribal Business Partner’s Fraud/RICO Suit against MHA Nation

Here are the materials so far in Bird Industries Inc. v. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

10 Amended Complaint

17 Motion to Dismiss

18-8 Arbitration Demand

18-9 AAA Arbitration Dismissal Order

25 Response

26 Reply

29 Surreply

LTBB v. Whitmer Cert Petition

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the 1855 Treaty of Detroit established a federal reservation for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians?

Lower court materials here.

University of Washington 34th Annual Indian Law Symposium: Restatement of the Law of American Indians

Here.

UW Law’s Indian Law Symposium, an annual tradition for 34 years, will be held in two parts for the 2021-2022 academic year.
Part 1 was held on Friday, October 1, 2021 and featured a full set of topics from panelists across the country.

Part 2 will be held on April 21 and 22, 2022 and will focus exclusively on the forthcoming Restatement of The Law of American Indians. The presenters will all be from the group of experts who participated in the drafting of the Restatement. The event will be cosponsored with the Washington Law Review and supported by the American Law Institute.

We will be requesting 13.5 Law & Legal CLE credits total for Part 2 of the 34th Annual Indian Law Symposium.

Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition

Here:

Petition

Questions presented:

1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.

2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.

3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished. 

Lower court materials here.

Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Nonmember Company’s Objection to Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Agreement

1-2 AAA Petition

1-3 Iowa Tribal Court Injunction

4-1 Monster Group Motion

5 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice

7-1 Motion for Reconsideration

8 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Land Claim

Here are the materials in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. City of El Paso:

CA5 Unpublished Opinion

Opening Brief

Professor Amicus Brief

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside

Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

43 DCT Order

And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

55 DCT Order

Briefs in both cases here.

OCCA Materials in McClain v. Oklahoma

Here:

OCCA Opinion

Appellant’s Motion for Remand

State Brief

State’s Motion to Stay

 

California COA Decides Acres v. Marston

Here is the opinion:

Briefs:

Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.