Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Billie:
Briefs here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Government Moves to Dismiss Industry CERCLA Claim re: Uranium Mine at Laguna Pueblo
Here are the materials so far in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):
Complaint is here.
Government Moves to Dismiss Kansas Challenge to NIGC Indian Lands Opinion re: Quapaw
Here are the materials so far in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):
Complaint here.
First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Interlocutory Appeal in Sovereign Immunity Matter (Waited Too Long to Appeal Denial of Motion for Reconsideration)
Here is the opinion in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe:
An excerpt:
Surveying the foregoing, a prior duty panel of this court cleared the underbrush by dismissing as untimely any appeal from the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 14-1106, Order at 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2014). That decision obviates the need to decide whether we would have had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the Motion to Dismiss. We do need to decide, though, whether we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the only order before us: the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) Motion. For the reasons described below, we conclude that the denial of the Tribe’s untimely Rule 59(e) Motion does not qualify as a collateral order that we may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Tulalip Tribes Gaming Compact Dispute
Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
2015-05-28 Dkt #57 Denial of Pet for Rehearing En Banc
En banc petition here.
Federal Court Dismisses Title VII Claim against Seminole Casino
Here are the materials in Longo v. Seminole Indian Casino–Immokalee (M.D. Fla.):
An excerpt:
Remarkably, Plaintiff demands that the Court ignore this clear and dispositive analysis, and hold that the Tribe is not actually a federally recognized tribe. Plaintiff acknowledges that to do so, this Court would have to find not only that its own previous opinion, Mastro v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, No. 2:12–cv–411–SPC–38UAM, 2013 WL 3350567, at *1 (M.D.Fla.2013), was incorrect, but also that the Eleventh Circuit has erred on multiple occasions too, see Mastro, 578 F.App’x 801; Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 692 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir.2012). To support this sizeable request, Plaintiff provides the Court with numerous pages of historical context and argument, explaining how the Tribe, to this date, has failed to achieve federal recognition as an Indian tribe. But this argument is completely without merit. This Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Florida Supreme Court “rotely” accept that the Tribe is federally recognized because it is. Unsurprisingly, this has not changed in 2015. A simple search in the Federal Register reveals as much. To be sure, the United States Bureau of Indian Affair’s most recent list of “Indian entities … acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian tribes” includes the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 80 FR 1942–02 (2015) (emphasis added).
Federal Court Dismisses Title VI Claim against Chickasaw Housing
Here are the materials in Sanders v. Anoatubby (W.D. Okla.):
An excerpt:
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Complaint, and presuming all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims alleged in her Complaint. The Court specifically finds that jurisdiction is not vested in this Court based on plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated Title VI by not complying with the NAHASDA since the NAHASDA specifically exempts federally recognized tribes, such as the Chickasaw Nation and the tribally designated housing entities of those tribes such as the Chickasaw Nation Housing Administration, from Title VI. Further, the Court finds jurisdiction is not vested in this Court based on the Ex parte Young doctrine. Plaintiff specifically included defendants’ official titles in the caption of this lawsuit and alleges that defendants violated tribal policies. Other than conclusory statements that defendants were acting outside the scope of their official tribal capacity, plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support her claim that defendants were acting outside the scope of their tribal capacity or violating federal law. Therefore, the Court finds plaintiff’s Complaint against defendants Governor Bill Anoatubby, Wayne Scribner, Renee Sweet, Jackie Williams, and Terry Davis should be dismissed.
National Intertribal Tax Conference Announcement — Sept. 16-17, 2015
NITA ANNOUCES ITS 17TH ANNUAL TAX CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 16-17, 2015 – SENECA NIAGARA RESORT & CASINO
The National Intertribal Tax Alliance (NITA) is pleased to announce its 17th Annual Tax Conference hosted by the Seneca Nation of Indians at the Seneca Niagara Resort & Casino in Niagara Falls, NY on September 16-17, 2015. The Seneca Niagara Resort & Casino (http://www.senecaniagaracasino.com) is owned by the Seneca Nation of Indians, the “Keeper of the Western Door” for the Iroquois Confederacy—a nation rich in culture and proud of their heritage and legacy. We are confident that you will enjoy their hospitality as well as their beautiful facility and the Niagara Falls area. More information about the Seneca Nation of Indians can be found at https://sni.org/
Highlighting this year’s conference will be Vincent G. Logan, Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of the Special Trustee, Department of Interior, delivering the Keynote Address and participation from his office and staff on updates from the OST. The NITA Board has developed an outstanding conference agenda on many “hot topic” tribal taxation issues in Indian country for 2015 as well as participation from an “all-star” cast of speakers from diverse backgrounds with expertise in all aspects of tribal taxation issues. The conference agenda includes both general sessions and breakouts for more in-depth discussions.
Two Indian Law Articles in New Issue of Federal Lawyer
Here:
Diversely Native
Many federal Indian law professors have experienced some version of the following: We go to a law school to give a workshop on a specific aspect of federal Indian law and get a question along the lines of …
and…
“Indian Law and Order Commission Proposals Gain Ground” by Troy Eid and Affie Ellis
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.