Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Federal Indictment of Patrick Dwayne Murphy

Here are relevant materials in United States v. Murphy (E.D. Okla.):

14 Indictment

68 Motion to Dismiss — Statute of Limitations

69 Motion to Dismiss — Pre-Indictment Delay

84 US Response to 69

108 DCT Order Denying 68

109 DCT Order Denying 69

Federal Court Rejects Shinnecock Fishers’ Suit

Here are the materials in Silva v. Farrish (E.D. N.Y.):

90 Objection to Magistrate Report

92 Response

96 DCT Order

Prior briefs here.

Harvard Law Review Note on Wisconsin Oneida’s Reservation Boundaries Case Win in the Seventh Circuit

Here.

Here is our post on that case.

Fond du Lac Ojibwe Challenge to Mine Proceeds

Here are the materials so far in Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. Wheeler (D. Minn.):

51 Amended Complaint

58 Poly Met Mining Motion to Dismiss

63 EPA Motion to Dismiss

67 Tribe Response

70 Poly Met Reply

72 EPA Reply

77 DCT Order

Federal Court Allows Some Tobacco Business Claims in Dispute between Sac and Fox, Seneca, and Susanville Rancheria Companies

Here are the materials so far in Allegheny Capital Enterprises LLC v. Cox (W.D. N.Y.):

8 Amended Complaint

17-8 Motion to Dismiss

17-5 Arbitration Decision

21 Response

22 Reply

23 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This is a diversity action commenced by a corporate entity affiliated with the Sac and Fox of Oklahoma Tribe (doing business in the Seneca Nation in New York) and a partnership doing business in the Seneca Nation. They claim that Defendants, officers of affiliated corporations of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (a Native tribe in California, also referred to as “SIR”), made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that led to Plaintiffs entering into the tobacco manufacturing and distribution contracts with one of the affiliated corporations. Defendants represented that they had the authority to waive tribal sovereign immunity for the affiliate corporation and that the affiliate in fact waived that immunity. After an alleged breach of these contracts, Plaintiffs lodged claims against one of the affiliate corporations, but the corporation successfully asserted that it did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs then commenced this action against the officers; they did not name the corporation as a Defendant.

Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) the Amended Complaint on sovereign immunity, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part (dismissing claims against Defendants Stacy Dixon and Jolene Robles for lack of personal jurisdiction), denied in part (denying other grounds asserted). After resolution of this motion, Plaintiffs retain claims against Defendant Gretchen Cox.

Federal Court Enjoins Sale of National Archives in Seattle

UPDATED:

45_ORDER_PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Here is the minute order in State of Washington v. Vought (W.D. Wash.):

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour- Dep Clerk: Gabriel Traber; Pla Counsel: Kristin Beneski, Lauryn Faas, and Lloyd Miller; Def Counsel: Brian Kipnis; CR: Nickie Drury; Time of Hearing: 9:00 AM; Courtroom: Zoom;Motion Hearing held on 2/12/2021 re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Quileute Tribe Of The Quileute Reservation, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, American Historical Association, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Duwamish Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Doyon Ltd, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, HistoryLink, Confederated Tribes Of Siletz indians, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes Of The Coos Lower Umpqua And Siuslaw Indians, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, OCA Asian Pacific Advocates Greater Seattle, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Wing Luke Memorial Foundation, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, State of Oregon, Squaxin Island Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Cow Creek Band Of Umpqua Tribe Of Indians, Association Of King County Historical Organizations, Suquamish Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Historic Seattle, Hoh Indian Tribe, Museum Of History And Industry, The Klamath Tribes, State of Washington, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.
After hearing argument from Counsel, the Court informs the parties that an order granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be issued. (GT) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

Briefs are here.

Federal Court Declines to Enjoin Oak Flat Mining Project

Here is the order in Apache Stronghold v. United States (D. Ariz.):

57 DCT Order

Briefs here.

Michigan COA Holds Mackinac Tribe Member May Have Treaty Rights

Here is the opinion in People v. Caswell:

Opinion

An excerpt:

Defendant, Walter Joseph Caswell, is a member of the Mackinac Tribe of Odawa and Ojibwa Indians (the “Mackinac Tribe”). In October 2018, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation officer cited defendant for spear fishing in a closed stream in violation of MCL 324.48715 and MCL 324.48711.1 Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that he was a member of an Indian tribe or band granted hunting and fishing rights by 1836 and 1855 treaties with the United States federal government. The Mackinac County district court granted defendant’s motion upon concluding that the Mackinac Tribe was entitled to rights under the relevant treaties. On appeal from the prosecutor, the Mackinac County circuit court reversed on the ground that the Mackinac Tribe was not federally recognized and that federal tribal recognition is a matter for initial determination by the United States Department of the Interior. We granted defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.

Briefs:

353537_13_01.pdf-AT Brf

353537_16_01.pdf-AE Brf

353537_19_01.pdf-Reply

353537_29_01.pdf–Amicus 1

353537_32_01.pdf-Amicus 2

Briefing in Attempt to Enjoin Copper Mining Project at Chi’chil Biłdagoteel [Oak Flat]

Here are the materials in Apache Stronghold v. United States (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

7 Motion for TRO

18 US Response

23 Reply in Support of 7

50 US Closing Brief

51 Apache Stronghold Closing Brief

56 Amicus Brief

Tribal Law Journal Volume 20

Here:

PDF

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez in the Evolution of Federal Law
Richard B. Collins

PDF

Tribal Justice: Honoring Indigenous Dispute Resolution (Symposium Keynote Address)
Deb Haaland

PDF

Native American Oral Evidence: Finding a New Hearsay Exception
Max Virupaksha Katner

PDF

Tribal Opposition to Enbridge Line 5: Rights and Interests
John Minode’e Petoskey