









Here is the complaint in Ute Indian Tribe v. United States (D.D.C.):
Here.
Share this with future Native lawyers! The Pre-Law Summer Institute (PLSI) is accepting applications for PLSI 2018. Join other future Native American lawyers at the oldest and most successful pre-law program for American Indians and Alaska Natives. For more information and to download an application, go to http://ailc-inc.org/PLSI.htm.
Important Dates:
March 23 — Applications Due
May 30-31 — Registration
June 1 — Mandatory Orientation
June 4 — Classes Begin
July 27 — Program Concludes

Here is the agenda: Continue reading
Here are the materials in Smith v. United States (D. Ariz.):
It’s was a month ago, but here goes:
1 CA-CV 16-0521 Hopi v. AZ Snowbowl
Thanks to D.C. for sending this along.
Briefs here.
Here:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Questions presented:
1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal filed by a nonparty when the nonparty did not participate in any capacity in the district court proceedings.
2. Whether the Tenth Circuit improperly invoked the Indian canon of construction to deprive surface-estate owners who are members or successors-in-interest to Indian tribe members of important property rights by overriding clear regulatory language for the express purpose of favoring the economic interests of an Indian tribe without examining congressional intent.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATES:
Here:
From the report:
We investigated allegations that a senior U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) official expressed to other DOI employees his intent to assist two American Indian tribes he had worked with before becoming a DOI employee. In addition, we learned during our investigation that the senior DOI official may have encouraged the hiring of former business associates involved in the guarantee of a DOI loan to another Indian tribe; the senior official himself had been involved in issuing the loan before he started working at the DOI, and the tribe had defaulted on it. The senior official allegedly suggested that a subordinate needed to approve payment of the loan guarantee even though the DOI had already decided not to pay it. He also allegedly asked a DOI employee to hire one of his relatives.
We found that in the short time he worked for the DOI, the senior official made several comments that created an appearance to other DOI employees that he was planning to give preferential treatment to entities he had relationships with. We confirmed that soon after he began working for the DOI, he told three DOI employees that he intended to continue assisting two tribes that he had worked with before coming to the DOI. We found that he assisted the tribes as a DOI employee only once, when he volunteered to schedule meetings between the tribes and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. The senior DOI official also spoke to his subordinates about hiring his former business associates and paying the guarantee on the loan he was associated with; although this did not violate regulations, his statements made his subordinates uncomfortable. In addition, we confirmed that he asked a DOI employee to hire his relative, but he claimed that he had been joking when he made the request.
The senior official left the DOI after we began our investigation. We provided this report to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior for any action deemed appropriate.
Related post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.