South Dakota SCT Briefs in Nonmember Challenge to County Taxing Authority on Indian Trust Lands

Plaintiff Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians seeks a declaratory judgment that enforcement of defendant Bayfield County’s zoning code on fee simple land held by tribal members within the Red Cliff Band Reservation violates federal Indian law. Before the court is plaintiff’s fully briefed motion for summary judgment (dkt. #10), on which the court heard oral argument on November 21, 2019. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that it is not unmistakably clear that Congress intended to allow application of the County’s zoning regulations on land held by tribal members within the boundary of the reservation.

Snoqualmie Tribes Sues for Treaty of Point Elliott Rights

January 10, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):

1-complaint-1-1.pdf

Navajo Sues Interior over Fee-to-Trust Notice Rules

January 10, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Ariz.):

1-complaint-1.pdf

California COA Rejects Fourth Effort by Private Party to Shut Down Beer Sales by Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

January 10, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Barrett v. Selnek-is Tem-al Corp.:

barrett-opinion.pdf

Tenth Circuit Affirms United States v. Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe

January 9, 2020January 9, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

We recognize that in interpreting federal statutes in Indian affairs we “provide for a broad construction when the issue is whether Indian rights are reserved or established, and for a narrow construction when Indian rights are to be abrogated or limited.” Felter, 752 F.2d at 1512; see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 224–25 (1982). In Felter, we determined the hunting and fishing rights of the individuals were not abrogated because the statute did not clearly abrogate them—this is a narrowing construction. But we cannot also conclude that the Termination Act implicitly gave the Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe authority to exercise Ute tribal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, when the Act plainly established those rights within the Ute Tribe.

Briefs here.