California v. Pauma Band Cert Petition

Here is the petition in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:

Cal v Pauma Cert Petn

Question presented:

In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), this Court held that a waiver of state sovereign immunity must be “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Id. at 673 (alteration omitted). This case concerns a gaming compact between the State of California and the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation. Both parties waived their sovereign immunity from suits arising under the compact, but only to the extent that “[n]either side makes any claim for monetary damages (that is, only injunctive, specific performance, including enforcement of a provision of this Compact requiring payment of money to one or another of the parties, or declaratory relief is sought) . . . .” App. 28a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that this limited waiver, which also appears in gaming compacts between California and 57 other tribes, waived the State’s immunity with respect to an award of $36.2 million in restitution.

The question presented is: Whether, under Edelman, the language of the limited waiver—which expressly excludes claims for “monetary damages” and references only injunctive relief, specific performance, and declaratory relief— waived the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to the district court’s monetary award.

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

United South and Eastern Tribes Amicus Brief in Support of the Tribal Petitioners against NLRB

Here is the USET brief in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB:

USET Amicus in Support of Tribal Petitions

This one is substantially the same as USET’s brief in the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB case.

Kevin Washburn on Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval

Kevin Washburn has posted “Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval” on SSRN. The paper is forthcoming in Gaming Law and Economics.

The abstract:

As tribal-state gaming compact negotiations under IGRA have become more complex and ratification in state and tribal legislative bodies has become more political, state and tribal negotiators sometimes lose sight of important interests protected by IGRA through the Secretary of the Interior’s review authority. IGRA is fairly clear about the terms parties may and may not negotiate in compacts and Interior has begun to enforce IGRA more and more rigorously in the review process. To minimize the risk of disapproval, state and tribal negotiators are wise to consider several issues that are likely to raise concerns among federal reviewers. This essay surveys some of the more common issues that continue to arise in compact negotiations.

On another, unrelated note, Professor Washburn’s photography skills were in fine form this last weekend.

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Approval of Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe Gaming Compact

Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Jewell (D.D.C.):

76-1 Amador County Motion for Summary J

77 US Response

81 Amador County Reply

83 US Reply

84 DCT Order

An excerpt:

At the center of this dispute is a proposed gaming operation on the Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe located in Amador County, California. In 2000, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the “Secretary”), approved a gaming compact between the MeWuk Tribe and the State of California. The gaming compact was later amended in 2004 to provide for an expanded gaming operation. Although it had not challenged the 2000 gaming compact, Plaintiff, Amador County, challenges the Secretary’s approval of the amended compact, claiming that the Buena Vista Rancheria does not qualify as “Indian land”—a requirement under the IGRA.

***

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that: (1) Amador County stipulated that it would treat the Buena Vista Rancheria as a reservation; (2) Amador County is barred from arguing in this litigation that the Rancheria is not a reservation; and, alternatively, (3) the Secretary is authorized to declare that the Rancheria is a reservation for purposes of the IGRA. Therefore, the Court will DENY Amador County’s motion for summary judgment and GRANT the Secretary’s cross-motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision is set forth below.

St. Regis Mohawk General Counsel Posting

Here:

St. Regis Mohawk General Counsel

United States v. Bryant to be Argued April 19, 2016

Here.

We’ve been posting briefs here.

Federal Court Affirms BIA Effort to Evict Non-Indian Leaseholder at CRIT

Here are the materials in Tuttle v. Jewell (D.D.C.):

24-1 Tuttle Motion for Summary J

27 US Cross-Motion

29 US Motion to Strike Tuttle Motion

33 Tuttle Reply

34 Tuttle Opposition to Motion to Strike

36 US Reply

37 US Reply in Support of Motion to Strike

45 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff William Tuttle leased restricted Indian land in Riverside County, California, for a term of 50 years. The land is owned by the United States in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes. In 2010, the Bureau of Indian Affairs terminated the lease, finding that Mr. Tuttle had violated several of its provisions. The termination decision was affirmed by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Board of Indian Appeals are constituent agencies of the Department of Interior. Plaintiff sued the Secretary of the Interior, in her official capacity, complaining that the agency’s decision to terminate was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of both the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act and the terms of the Lease itself. Having reviewed the entire administrative record, the Court concludes that the agency acted reasonably on the record before it and within its authority. The Secretary’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

46 DCT Order Granting Motion to Strike

Materials in KPMG LLP v. Kanam

Here, filed in the District of Alaska, and now apparently pending in the Ninth Circuit:

4 KPMG Motion for PI

29 DCT Order Granting KPMG Motion for PI

36 KPMG Motion for Summary J

42 DCT Order Denying Removal

43 Kanam “Notice of Mootness”

44 KPMG Reply

50 DCT Order

 

Jicarilla Apache Nation Economic Development Holding Company Seeks Board Members

Here:

2016 03 17 Position Description – Board of Directors

National Indian Law Library Bulletin (3/17/16)

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 3/17/16.

U.S. Courts of Appeals Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/cta/2016cta.html
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources v. U.S. (Quiet Title; Rights – of Way)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
In the Sacred Places section, we feature some articles about the battle over sacred Apache land in Arizona. In the Intergovernmental section, we feature an article and information regarding the new Supreme Court nominee.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/114_uslegislation.html
Two bills were added:
H.R.4737: State and Tribal Government Sovereignty Protection Act of 2016.
H.R.684: Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2015.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2016fr.html
We feature a notice of the Bureau of I ndian Affairs relating to proclaiming certain lands as reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2016lr.html
We feature an article about a current U.S. Supreme Court case relating to reservation diminishment.