Here are the materials in Pistor v. Garcia (D. Ariz.):
106 Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary J
129 County Defendants Response
The suit against the tribal officials is before the Ninth Circuit now, materials here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
New York Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Indian Cigarette Shipper on Procedural Issue
Here is the opinion in People v. Laughing.
An excerpt:
At the time the instant charge was lodged against defendant, and at present, the taxability by New York of Native American manufactured cigarettes under the circumstances at play here lacked clarity. It is undisputed that the Department had a forbearance enforcement policy with respect to Native American manufactured cigarettes that are transported between reservations. Furthermore, defendant asserts that, when faced with decisions regarding the applicability and enforcement of the Tax Law to various situations involving the possession or transportation of Native American manufactured cigarettes, the Division almost uniformly deferred to the expertise of the Department and the primacy of its dealings with the Indian nations. While there can be no question that “it is the prerogative of a District Attorney to prosecute people who commit crimes,” it is equally true that “one of the reforms effected through the years in the procedure to dismiss accusatory instruments in the interest of justice was to remove the power to do so from the offices of District Attorney and Attorney–General and lodge it, instead, in the courts alone” (People v. Rickert, 58 N.Y.2d 122, 131 [1983] ). To be sure, the policy of the Department and the issues surrounding the Division’s actual enforcement of the Tax Law with respect to Native American manufactured cigarettes may very well be found insufficient to justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice. Yet, we simply cannot say that the testimony sought on those issues “is utterly irrelevant” to the question of whether defendant’s prosecution here would be unjust[.]
Native Wholesale Supply v. Wasden (Idaho) Cert Petition
Here:
Native Wholesale Supply v Wasden Cert Petition
1. Whether under circumstances in which a State is admittedly precluded from regulating an Indian it is also precluded from regulating a corporation wholly owned by an Indian and organized under the laws of a federally recognized tribe.
2. Whether, under a State law that purports to give the Attorney General power to “approve” all cigarettes before they may be imported into Idaho, the State of Idaho can prohibit an Indian-owned business on the Coeur d’Alene reservation from importing into that reservation cigarettes that are sold “FOB Seneca Nation” by a company wholly owned by a member of the Seneca Nation and licensed by the Seneca Nation to carry on such trade.3. Whether the State of Idaho’s cigarette-sale statutes are preempted to the extent that they are enforced in a manner that prohibits Native Wholesale Supply Company (“NWS”) from trading with Warpath Inc. (“Warpath”).
4. Whether the State of Idaho can constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over NWS, an Indian-chartered entity located on Seneca Nation of Indians Land, situated within the geographic boundaries of the State of New York, where NWS sells the tobacco products “FOB Seneca Nation” to Warpath, and the products are then transported to Warpath’s place of business on the Coeur d’Alene reservation.
Lower court materials here.
Village of Hobart v. Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1) Whether Congress’ waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity, under § 313(a) of the CWA, for enforcement of local stormwater management ordinances, for “any property” over which it has “jurisdiction,” applies to land taken into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465.
2) Whether lands acquired by an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465, within its former reservation boundaries are, removed from state jurisdiction because, as the Seventh Circuit ruled, they are reclassified as “Indian Country.”
Lower court materials here.
Mashpee Gaming Compact Approval Letter
Sixth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Michigan Gaming Control Act
Here are (some of) the materials in Arabo v. Greektown Casino:
Nooksack COA Rules against Nooksack Disenrollees
Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):
An excerpt:
This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.
We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.
Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.
The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.
The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:
The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Cotut recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.
Lower court materials are here.
Federal Court Dismisses Skokomish Treaty Rights Claims against State under 11th Amendment and Rule 19
Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark (W.D. Wash.):
59 State Defendants Motion to Dismiss
60 Prosecuting Attys Motion to Dismiss
67 Tribal Amici Motion to Dismiss
116 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
Being fully advised, the court GRANTS both motions on grounds that Skokomish Indian Tribe failed to join certain other Indian tribes in this action. These other tribes are required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, but cannot be joined due to their sovereign immunity. Because the court concludes that the action cannot proceed “in equity and good conscience” without these other tribes, see id., the court dismisses Skokomish Indian Tribe’s action without prejudice. With respect to Defendants Goldmark and Young only, the court also grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss on grounds of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and because Skokomish Indian Tribe has failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nevertheless, despite granting Defendants’ motions, the court also grants Skokomish Indian Tribe leave to amend its Amended Complaint.
We posted the complaint here.
Nebraska COA Orders Transfer of ICWA Matter to Tribal Court
Here is the opinion in In re Jayden D.
An excerpt:
Because the State did not meet its burden of establishing good cause to deny transfer to tribal court, the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Yolanda’s motion to transfer. We reverse the order of the juvenile court and remand the cause with directions to sustain the motion to transfer.
You must be logged in to post a comment.