Here is the order in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Trump (D. Mont.):
Briefs here.
Here, from High Country News.
Here are the materials in Big Horn County Elec. Coop. v. Big Man (D. Mont.):
79 Tribal Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
83-4 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment
85 Big Man Motion for Summary Judgment
88 Tribal Board Motion for Summary Judgment
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Prior posts here.
Here.
Here are the materials in Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (S.D. Fla.):
Here is the petition:
Questions presented:
1. Under Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) and United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924), did the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe’s failure to file a land claim under the 1851 Act extinguish any of the Tribe’s rights as to Section 36 as conveyed to the State of California for school purposes under the Enabling Act of 1853?
2. Given that this Court has found that states take title to property under the Enabling Acts subject to aboriginal title only where a preexisting treaty has preserved the aboriginal title, does the absence of any Chemehuevi Indian Tribe reservation at the time Section 36 was conveyed to the State of California under the Enabling Act of 1853 bar any claim by the Tribe or its members that Section 36 constitutes Indian country?
3. Does the Appropriation Doctrine bar any claim by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe or its members that the 1907 Secretarial Order could transfer Section 36 to the Tribe after the property had already been conveyed to the State of California for school purposes under the Enabling Act of 1853?
Lower court materials here.
Update:
James D. Diamond has published “In the Aftermath of Rampage Shootings: Is Healing Possible? Hard Lessons from the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and Other Indigenous Peoples” in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives.
Here is the abstract:
This Article produces insights, ideas, and findings which link mass shootings and communal responses in the United States and on American Indian reservations. This Article compares the aftermath of these tragedies in non-indigenous communities with the responses when the tragedies have occurred in certain Native American communities, including comparisons between indigenous and non-indigenous courts. It looks to the roots of the Native American approach in indigenous historical evidence. Described is an institutional weakness in the Anglo-European judicial model in how it responds to the aftermath of heinous crimes. Explored is the adaptation of certain practices from indigenous peoples as a method of contributing to healing, closure, and reconciliation following heinous criminal behavior. Further explored is the possibility of incorporating face-to-face, interpersonal interactions between mass shooting victims, offenders, and their families.
Jim is the author of “After the Bloodbath: Is Healing Possible in the Wake of Rampage Shootings?“, published by Michigan State University Press.
Here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.