Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The government seeks review of a September 30, 2015 order of the Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”). See Order, Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation v. United States, No. 08-848C (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2015), ECF No. 121. In that order, the Claims Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (“NAHASDA”) is money mandating, giving the Claims Court jurisdiction over appellees’ claims. Id. On June 9, 2016, this court granted the government’s petition for interlocutory appeal to “ensure that the Court of Federal Claims is the court of proper jurisdiction before requiring it and the parties to undergo extensive unnecessary proceedings.” Order at 3, Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation v. United States, No. 2016-124 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2016), ECF No. 1-2. For the following reasons, we vacate and instruct the Claims Court to dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Gizmodo: “Why a Drug Company Is Selling Patents to a Native American Tribe”

September 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Nooksack Reaches Settlement with National Indian Gaming Commission

September 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Nooksack NIGC Settlement

Tribal and Federal Merits Briefs in Patchak v. Zinke

September 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US Merits Brief

Gun Lake Merits Brief

Other briefs here.

Seattle Human Rights Commission Letter on Culverts Case

September 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Seattle Human Rights Commission Culvert_OpEd

An excerpt:

The Seattle Human Rights Commission writes in response to the Seattle Times recent editorial “The Supreme Court must clarify culvert ruling,” and seeks to correct inaccuracies regarding tribal treaty rights and the State’s obligation to not impair them. Washington’s tribal nations have lived and fished throughout our State since time immemorial, and their right to do so is protected by treaty. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an exhaustive and well researched opinion, recognized that this right requires the removal of culverts that block fish passage. The State’s decision to seek Supreme Court review of that decision reflects revisionist and troubling effort to weaken treaty rights.