26th Annual NNALSA Moot Court Competition: March 2-4, 2018 @ ASU

Here (PDF):

NNALSA Moot Court 091117

National NALSA Moot Court Competition
March 2-4, 2018
Beus Center for Law and Society
111 E. Taylor Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004

Each year, hundreds of law students from across the country take on the challenge of writing and arguing on the most compelling federal Indian law and tribal governance issues. The Native American Law Students Association (NALSA) at Arizona State University (ASU) is proud to partner with the Indian Legal Program at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and the National Native American Law Student Association (NNALSA) on hosting the 2018 NNALSA Moot Court Competition.

Hosted by: ASU’s Indian Legal Program, Native American Law Students Association, and National NALSA

Registration at: law.asu.edu/nnalsamootcourt

Questions? Contact Sarah Crawford at nnalsa.vicepresident@gmail.com

Tenth Circuit Holds Osage Wind Needs Permit before Digging into Osage Mineral Estate

Here is the opinion in United States v. Osage Wind LLC.

Briefs:

Osage Minerals Council Opening Brief

US Brief

Osage Minerals Council Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Pawnee Effort to Challenge Oil and Gas Leases

Here are the materials in Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke (N.D. Okla.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

20 Opposition

21 Reply

27 DCT Order

Zinke National Monuments Memo to President (Finally)

 

Here is the WaPo article, with a link to the memo.

Memo here:

Interior-Secretary-Ryan-Zinke-s-Report-to-the-President

 

Scholars Amicus Brief in Patchak v. Zinke

Here:

16-498 bsac Fed. Cts. and Indian Law Scholars

Background materials here.

New Scholarship on Sovereign Immunity from Patent Claims

Here is “Shielded by Sovereignty: The Impact for Patentees of Covidien v. University of Florida Research Foundation” by Matt Rizzolo, Samuel L Brenner, Andrew J Sutton, and Michael Gershoni.

Upper Skagit Cert Petition in In Rem Tribal Immunity Matter

Here is the petition in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Does a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcome the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Cert Opp

Reply

Federal Court Issues Split Decision in Flandrea Santee Sioux — South Dakota Tax Dispute

Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):

79 State Motion for Summary J

117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J

124 State Opposition

130 Flandreau Opposition

136 Flandreau Reply

154 DCT Order

An excerpt:

1. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

2. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State can impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store (claims one and three).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four)

3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not preempted by IGRA (claim one).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four).

c. The collection and remittance of taxes on nonmember consumer purchases at the Store are not preempted by federal law and do not infringe on tribal sovereignty (claims two and five).

4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

b. The State cannot condition renewal of the Tribe’s beverage license on the collection and remittance of a use tax on nonmember consumer purchases (claims six and eight).

5. The State does not have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop. However, the State does have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Store (claim seven).

6. Each party requested declaratory relief. Tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. This Court has no jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity to order the ‘payment to the State from the escrow funds held pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Tribe, however, agreed in the Deposit Agreement that those funds would be held by the escrow agent pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the escrow agent may now, subject to any stay granted pursuant to an appeal, pay the funds held in escrow to the Tribe and to the State in their respective shares under the guidance provided by this declaratory judgment.

California Court of Appeals Holds Contract Breach Claim Preempted by IGRA

Here is the opinion in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Cal. Ct. App.). An excerpt:

We conclude that IGRA preempts state contract actions based on unapproved “management contracts” and “collateral agreements to management contracts” as such agreements are defined in the IGRA regulatory scheme. Thus, the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the ELA and the Note were agreements subject to IGRA regulation, a necessary determination related to the question of preemption and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. We further conclude that the ELA is a management contract and the Note is a collateral agreement to a management contract subject to IGRA regulation. Because these agreements were never approved by the NIGC Chairman as required by the IGRA and were thus void, Sharp Image’s action is preempted by IGRA. Consequently, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. 

Briefs here.

NYTs: “Traditions Revived at a Tribal Culture Camp” [Yurok Tribe]

Here.