Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Oklahoma American Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act of 1974 Struck Down [definition of “Indian” more restrictive than federal law]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Fontenot v. Hunter (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

33 Ps Motion for Summary Judgment

35 Oklahoma Motion for Summary Judgment

39 Ps Response

41 State Response

42 State Reply

43 Ps Reply

47 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Although the Court rejects Plaintiff’s challenges under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as those under the dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment, the Court finds for the foregoing reasons that Plaintiff has shown that Oklahoma’s American Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act of 1974, as amended, Okla. Stat. tit. 78, §§ 71-75, violates the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and is therefore unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to her.

 

Grocery Store Prevails in Defense of Tort Suit Arising on Navajo Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Morris v. Giant Four Corners Inc. (D.N.M.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-1 State Court Compleint

38 Giant Motion to Dismiss or Stay Pending Exhaustion

41 Response

44 Reply in Support of 38

64 DCT Order Denying 38

79 DCT Order on Negligent Entrustment

90 Giant Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

91 Giant Motion to Compel Election of Remedies or Dismiss

98 Response to 91

99 Response to 90

101 Reply in Support of 90

103 Reply in Support of 91

112 DCT Order

Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio Cert Petition [Grand Canyon Mine; NHPA Consultation]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

cert-petition-1.pdf

Question presented:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. § 306108, requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes and other interested parties to assess and mitigate the potential adverse impacts that a project requiring federal approval may have on sites of historic and cultural significance.

The question presented here is whether the NHPA imposes a continuing obligation upon federal agencies to engage in consultation under Section 106 when an agency maintains supervision of an ongoing project, and has the opportunity to require changes to mitigate adverse impacts after the initial approval.

Lower court materials here.

Morning Sun: “Tribal appeals panel hears three family enrollment cases”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

CSM: “Native justice: How tribal values shape Judge Abby’s court”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Denied in Seminole/IHS Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Azar (D.D.C.):

9 Seminole MSJ

14 US Response + Cross Motion

15 Seminole Reply

17 US Reply

20 DCT Order

Complaint here.

Section 1983 Claim against Puyallup Officers Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lewis v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

16 Amended Complaint

42 Puyallup Defendants MSJ

48 Ps Motion for Leave to Dismiss

49 Ds Response

50 DCT Order

Update in Gold King Mine Release Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are updated materials in In re Gold King Mine Release in San Juan, County on August 5, 2015 (D.N.M.):

166 DCt Order re EPA Contractors

167 DCT Order re Harrison Western

168 DCT Order re Sunnyside Gold

Earlier materials here.

Ak-Chin Prevails (with US Help) in Water Dispute with Central Arizona Water Conservation District

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ak-Chin Indian Community v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District (D. Ariz.):

65 CAWCD Counterclaim

74 US Answer

76 US Motion to Dismiss 65

80 CAWCD Response to 76

82 Reply in Support of 76

102 US Cross Claim

107 US Motion for Summary J

108 Ak-Chin Motion for Summary J

112 CAWCD Cross MSJ

115 US Reply in Support of 107

116 Ak-Chin Reply in Support of 108

117 CAWCD Reply

126 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

SCOTUS Decides Sturgeon v. Frost II

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Materials here.

Update — footnote 2 of the majority:

As noted earlier, the Ninth Circuit has held in three cases—the so called Katie John trilogy—that the term “public lands,” when used in ANILCA’s subsistence-fishing provisions, encompasses navigable waters like the Nation River. See Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F. 3d 698 (1995); John v. United States, 247 F. 3d 1032 (2001) (en banc); John v. United States, 720 F. 3d 1214 (2013); supra, at 12. Those provisions are not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s holdings that the Park Service may regulate subsistence fishing on navigable waters. See generally Brief for State of Alaska as Amicus Curiae 29–35 (arguing that this case does not implicate those decisions); Brief for Ahtna, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 30–36 (same).