SCOTUS Denies Cert in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming

Here is today’s order list.

Cert petition and lower court materials here.

Washington SCT Amends Tribal Court Jurisdiction Court Order 82.5

Here is the order. The amendment:

(d) Communication Between Superior Court of Any County of this State and Indian Tribal Court.

(1) A superior court of any county of this state may communicate with any Indian tribal court concerning co-occurring proceedings, whether they are active or have been concluded. The parties shall provide to the respective courts the identity, contact information, and a case or docket number of the other court’s proceedings to facilitate this communication.

(2) The superior court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able or allowed to participate in the communication, they shall be given an opportunity to present facts and legal arguments in writing before a decision is made regarding the communication, or the subject of communication, by the superior court. The Indian tribal court‘s procedures and customs shall determine the parties’ participation in the Indian tribal court proceedings.

(3) The superior court shall make a record of a communication made pursuant to this section. The parties shall be informed promptly of the communication by the superior court and granted access to the record. The Indian tribal court‘s procedures shall determine whether and how a record is made in Indian tribal court proceedings, and whether and how parties may be informed of the communication or granted access to a record of the communication.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, communication between the superior court and the Indian tribal court regarding scheduling, administrative or emergency purposes, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. The superior court need not make a record of the communication under this section. The Indian tribal court‘s procedures shall determine whether and how a record is made in Indian tribal court proceedings of such communication.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

(6) The superior court shall follow the procedures set forth in subsection (3) of this section when communicating regarding adult criminal matters, except as otherwise authorized by law. The Indian tribal court‘s procedures shall determine the requirements for communication regarding adult criminal matters in Indian tribal court proceedings. Superior courts and Indian tribal courts may communicate about the orders prohibiting contact as set forth in subsections (1) – (5) above.

Tenth Circuit (Barely) Keeps Alive Caddo Nation Suit against Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

Here is the unpublished opinion in Caddo Nation v. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Yurok Tribe v. Resighini Rancheria

Here:

opening-brief.pdf

answer-brief.pdf

reply.pdf

Lower court materials here.

No Indian Law Grants from SCOTUS Long Conference; No Word on Denials Yet

Order list here.

Muscogee Primary Election Results Vacated

Here is the opinion in In re Tiger (Muscogee (Creek) Supreme Court):

doc.-3-order-and-opinion-100219-2.pdf

News coverage here.

Ninth Circuit Confirms Pineoleville Pomo Nation’s Officials Face Potential Individual Liability under RICO

Here is the unpublished opinion in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James.

Materials here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms U&A Boundaries in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 09-01 [Makah versus Quinault & Quileute]

Here are the materials in Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe (CA9):

Unpublished Memorandum

Quileute & Quinault Opening Brief

Makah Answer Brief

Quileute & Quinault Reply

Suquamish Brief

State of Washington and Klallam Tribes Brief

Hoh Brief

Lower court materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) (subproceeding 09-01):

439 DCT Order re Boundaries

442 Quileute Motion for Reconsideration

444 Hoh Motion

445 Quinault Motion

447 State Motion — Scrivener’s Error

448 Suquamish Motion

449 DCT Amended Order

453 Makah Response

456 State Response to Motions for Reconsideration

459 DCT Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration

Prior posts here and here.

Opinion in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States

Here is the opinion:

404 DCT Opinion

An excerpt:

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the bench trial held on October 29-November 20, 2018; November 29-November 30, 2018; December 3, 2018; December 5, 2018; and December 13, 2018. The primary issue is whether Plaintiff Pueblo of Jemez has the exclusive right to use, occupy, and possess the lands of the Valles Caldera National Preserve (“Valles Caldera”) pursuant to its allegedly unextinguished and continuing aboriginal title to those lands. The Court concludes that Jemez Pueblo has not established aboriginal title to the Valles Caldera. Although the evidence proves that Jemez Pueblo has actually and continuously used and occupied the Valles Caldera for a long time, the evidence also shows that many Pueblos and Tribes also used the Valles Caldera in ways that defeat Jemez Pueblo’s aboriginal title claim.

Earlier posts here.

Fort McDermitt Prevails over IHS on Clinic in Oregon

Here are the materials in Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe v. Azar (formerly Price) (D.D.C.):

31 Tribe Second MSJ

33-1 US Second MSJ

35 Tribe Reply

37 US Reply

40 DCT Order

Prior post here.