Ninth Circuit Briefs in Menominee Indian Tribe v. Lexington Insurance Company

Here:

Menominee Opening Brief

Other briefs TK

Lower court materials here.

Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Brings Rights of Nature Claims against City of Seattle in Tribal Court over Skagit River Dams

Here is the complaint in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle (Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Court):

SAU-CIV-01-22-001 Civil Complaint

SAU-CIV-01-22-001 Summons

Fletcher, Fort, and Singel: “Defending the Indian Child Welfare Act”

From November 2021:

Lani Guinier Walks On

NYTs, here.

Professor Guinier came to the 2021 Michigan State Law Review symposium on Wenona Singel’s paper, “Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability.”

Prof. Guinier (center), with Gerald Torres (left) and Joe Gone (right)

This one hurts a lot. Singel’s tribute on FB is worth a read.

.

Big Day for Indian Law at the January 7 SCOTUS Conference [a mini-long conference???]

Several Indian law cert petitions are set for discussion today at the Supreme Court’s conference (which is their fancy way of saying they’re meeting as a group of 9 to discuss pending cases; where they decide whether or not to accept a cert petition). Here’s a list:

The Brackeen/ICWA petitions

Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton

Haggerty v. United States

Several of the McGirt-related petitions

Yet another Stand Up petition

Tanner v. Cayuga

The fun keeps going next week:

Klickitat County v. Yakama Nation Cert Petition

And the week after that:

Dakota Access v. Standing Rock

Split Tenth Circuit Rules in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence

Here. An excerpt describing the holding:

This appeal marks the latest chapter in a long-running contract dispute between the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the Tribe) and Lynn Becker, a non-Indian. The contract concerned Becker’s work marketing and developing the Tribe’s mineral resources on the Ute reservation. Almost seven years ago, Becker sued the Tribe in Utah state court for allegedly breaching the contract by failing to pay him a percentage of certain revenue the Tribe received from its mineral holdings. Later, the Tribe filed this lawsuit, challenging the state court’s subject matter jurisdiction under federal law. The district court denied the Tribe’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the state-court proceedings, and the Tribe appeals.
We reverse and hold that the Tribe is entitled to injunctive relief. The district court’s factual findings establish that Becker’s state-court claims arose on the reservation because no substantial part of the conduct supporting them occurred elsewhere. And because the claims arose on the reservation, the state court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction absent congressional authorization.

Briefs here.

Yakama Nation Brings Cultural Appropriation Suit against Wine Sellers

Here is the complaint in Yakama Nation Tribal Council v. Sheridan Vineyard (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

Ninth Circuit Briefs in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Beccera

Here:

San Carlos Apache Opening Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

US Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Swinomish v. Lummi [US v. Washington subproceeding 19-01]

Here:

Lummi Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

The dispute involves waters somewhere in . . . here:

Answer Briefs here:

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Grondal v. United States [21-35507]

Here:

Wapato Heritage Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Colville Answer Brief

Wapato Reply

Related decision [20-35694] from the CA9 here.