Here is the opening brief in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):
53 DCT Order on Briefing Schedule
56 Pro-Football Motion for Summary J on Constitutional Claims
According to the briefing schedules, briefs are going to be flying fast and furious. We’ll try to keep up.
Prior materials on the federal government intervention here, and the now-denied motion to dismiss here.
Here:
Western Sky v Jackson Cert Petition
Questions presented:
I. Whether the validity of an arbitration clause is determined exclusively by the statutory requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), as held by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits – or by a common-law “reasonableness” test, as held by the Seventh Circuit below?
II. Whether a court may apply a state law defense in a manner that disfavors arbitration by voiding an entire arbitration clause merely because the contractually-designated arbitrator is unavailable, notwithstanding the FAA’s express directive to appoint a substitute arbitrator?
III. Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously – and in conflict with the Second and Eighth Circuits – required a non-tribal-member’s physical entry onto the relevant Indian reservation in connection with a transaction with a tribal member before ordering tribal court exhaustion of judicial claims arising from the transaction?
Lower court materials here.
Here is a news article noting that Judge Doucet ruled from the bench.
An excerpt:
In a hearing Monday afternoon, Feb. 23, Nooksack Tribal Court Judge pro tem Randy Doucet held with the court’s previous rulings: Until tribal council has final word from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, they may not disenroll anyone, said lawyers for the affected members. A reporter was not allowed in the courtroom as only five people for each side were admitted.
Briefs:
2-10-15 Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion To Enforce Injuction Orders
2-10-15 Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition To Defendants Notice of Compliance
2-20-15 Reply Re Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Enforce Injunction Orders
Here is today’s order list.
We posted the petition and related materials here.
Here:
There is the potential for an enormous amount of chaos for both US v. Washington and for any Indian tribe with extant treaty rights based on the arguments going on here now. Most notably, several tribes (Quinault, Quileute, and Hoh) are claiming that the Sherrill-based equitable defenses may apply in some way to Indian treaty claims.
I find this personally horrifying and disturbing — that any tribe would claim that Sherrill and its Second Circuit progeny apply to treaty rights. Sherrill is a statute-based claim, and so are the Second Circuit cases that purport to follow its reasoning. Treaty rights are an entirely different genre.
I sincerely hope the U.S. v. Washington tribes will opt-out of federal litigation — with its potential to undercut treaty rights for tribes all over the country — and move toward an inter-tribal treaty. There is at least one proposal on the table, and tribal leaders and tribal constituents should act quickly to adopt it. These inter-tribal disputes are doing nothing now but threatening to make bad law for everyone.
Luckily, Judge Martinez did not hold that equitable defenses apply here, but who knows what will happen in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.
Here are the new materials in subproceeding 09-01 of United States v. Washington (No. 70-9213) (W.D. Wash.):
248 Makah Motion for Summary J on Equitable Defenses
251 Quinault and Quileute Motion for Summary J
267 Quinault and Quileute Response to 248 Motion
274 Makah Reply in Support of 248 Motion
275 Interested Tribes Response to 251 – Equitable Defenses
279 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
281 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
283 Quileute and Quinault Motion to Define Burden of Proof
284 Interested Tribes Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
285 US Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
286 Upper Skagit Tribe Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
287 Makah Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
288 State of Washington Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
289 Quileute and Quinault Reply to 284 in Support of 283
290 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 283
304 DCT on Motions for Summary J
Materials in a related pending Ninth Circuit matter in subproceeding 09-01 are here.
Climate Change and Native Nations: The Search for Legal Remedies
Saturday, February 28, 2:45-3:45pm
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Kroon Hall, 195 Prospect Street, Room G01
The effects of climate change are continuing to increase and are disproportionately affecting tribal communities. Some Native nations have taken action to mitigate the effects of and adapt to climate change to protect their natural resources, homelands, infrastructure, and food sources. This workshop will address the following questions: What is the current state of climate policy within Native communities? What are Indian Country’s best resiliency practices? What opportunities and challenges exist in using various international and domestic legal tools to seek redress?
Registration: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/new-directions-in-environmental-law-2015-harnessing-momentum-tickets-14553793789
This panel is part of Yale Law School’s 2015 New Directions in Environmental Law Conference. To learn more about the conference, please visit: http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2015envirolawconference.htm.
Here are the materials so far in Navajo Health Foundation — Sage Memorial Hospital v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
8 HHS Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
37 DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
An excerpt:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) or Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a),1 filed November 25, 2014 (Doc. 8)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on January 27, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A); (ii) whether the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B); and (iii) whether the Court will transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). First, the Court concludes the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under § 1391(e)(1)(A), because Defendant Frank Dayish is domiciled in New Mexico. Second, the Court holds that the District of New Mexico is not a proper venue for this case under § 1391(e)(1)(B), because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did not occur in New Mexico. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B). Third, the Court will not transfer the case to the District of Arizona under § 1404(a), because Sage Hospital filed suit in the District of New Mexico, and because the District of New Mexico is a more convenient forum for the witnesses, the parties, and for obtaining the relevant documents than the District of Arizona is. Consequently, the Court will deny the Motion.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.