Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Gun Lake Tribe Prevails in Patchak Matter

July 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Patchak v. Jewell.

Here are the briefs.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Injunction Favoring Poarch Band against Escambia County Assessor

July 12, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth.

An excerpt:

The Poarch Band of Creek Indians (“Poarch Band”) sued James Hildreth,
Tax Assessor of Escambia County, Alabama, for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the assessment of property taxes on lands owned by the Poarch Band in Escambia County, Alabama, and held in trust by the United States (“Trust Property”). The Poarch Band maintains the Trust Property is exempt from taxation pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“IRA”). See 25 U.S.C. § 465.1 The district court granted injunctive relief barring the tax assessment efforts during the pendency of the case, and Hildreth appeals.2 Finding no abuse of discretion and no error of law, we affirm.

Briefs here.

Oklahoma Bar Journal Special Indian Law Issue

July 11, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Relief in Pala Band Disenrollment Appeal

July 11, 2016July 11, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Aguayo v. Jewell.

An excerpt:

This appeal analyzes whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it concluded that, according to tribal law, it had no authority to intervene in a tribal membership dispute, in which more than 150 people were disenrolled from the Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala Band or Band). We conclude that it did not, and affirm the decision of the district court.

Appellate Briefs:
Doc. 13 – Appellant’s Opening Brief
Doc. 23 – Answering Brief of the Federal Defendants
Doc. 21 – Appellant’s Reply Brief

Lower court materials here

SCOTUSBlog Profile of Ian Gershengorn

July 8, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Acting Solicitor General. Here.

Federal Court Issues Order in Little Traverse Reservation Boundaries Case Bifurcating Merits and Remedies Phases

July 7, 2016July 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.):

91. 2016-07-06 Opinion and Order Bifurcating Case and Granting Denying Plf’s MSD

An excerpt:

“‘Only Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries,’ and its intent to do so must be clear.” Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072, 1078–79 (2016) (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463, 470 (1984)). Even when a reservation exists and has not been diminished, however, a “long delay in seeking equitable relief . . . [can] evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance [a] suit seeks unilaterally to initiate.” City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 221 (2005); cf. Parker, 136 S. Ct. at 1082 (citing Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217–221) (“Because petitioners have raised only the single question of diminishment, we express no view about whether equitable considerations of laches and acquiescence may curtail the Tribe’s power to tax the retailers of Pender in light of the Tribe’s century-long absence from the undisputed lands.”).

These two principles frame the dispute this motion presents: May equitable defenses lie in this lawsuit? To best answer this question and organize this case, bifurcation is appropriate. In the first phase, which will address the existence and diminishment of a reservation, equitable defenses cannot lie. If necessary, the Court will revisit the dispute at the second, remedial phase.

Here are the briefs:

Doc. 66 – Tribe’s Memorandum in Support of Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery

Doc. 75 – State’s Brief in Opposition to Tribe’s Combined Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike Defenses or Rule 26(B) Limit Discovery

Doc. 80 – Tribe’s Combined Reply in Support of Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Defenses and Rule 26(b) Motion to Limit Discovery