Here is “Presidential Candidate in Navajo Nation Protests a Language Requirement.“
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Gila River Asst. Court Administrator Position
Here.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Treaty Argument in King Mountain Tobacco v. McKenna
The court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Yakama Treaty of 1855 did not preclude enforcement of the State of Washington’s escrow statute, which requires tobacco companies to place money from cigarette sales into escrow to reimburse the State for health care costs related to the use of tobacco products.
The panel held that Washington’s escrow statute was a nondiscriminatory law and that the activities of King Mountain Tobacco Co., a company owned and operated by an enrolled member of the Yakama Indian Nation, were largely off-reservation. Accordingly, absent express federal law to the contrary, King Mountain was subject to the escrow statute. The panel held that the plain text of the Yakama Treaty did not create a federal exemption from the escrow statute. Specifically, Article II of the Treaty, which established the boundaries of the Yakama reservation and reserved it for Yakama use and benefit, was not an express federal law that exempted King Mountain from the escrow statute. Nor was Article III, which reserved to the tribe the right to travel on public highways and the right to hunt and fish. The panel held that the district court did not err by declining to make findings regarding the Treaty’s meaning to the Yakama people at the time of its signing because the meaning to the Yakama people could not overcome the clear words of the Treaty.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Title VII Exemption for Tribal Preference in Employment`
Here is the opinion in EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.:
The syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with respect to its claim that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited the tribal hiring preference contained in Peabody Western Coal Co. leases with the Navajo Nation.
The panel held that the Navajo hiring preference in the leases was a political classification, rather than a classification based on national origin, and therefore did not violate Title VII. The panel concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants Peabody Western Coal Company and Navajo Nation, and third-party defendant Secretary of the Interior. The panel also held that the EEOC waived on appeal its record-keeping claim. Finally, the panel held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the EEOC’s eleventh-hour motion to supplement the record with a declaration and documents about Peabody’s hiring practices in 1999.
Native America Calling Show Today on Tribal Elections
Fletcher will be on Native America Calling, as well as MSU law student (on leave, due to recent successful election bid) Chris Mercier. Listen live.
Here is the description:
Friday, September 26, 2014 – Tribal Elections
The 2014 midterm elections in November are an opportunity for voters to make their voice heard by local, state and federal officials. In Native America, voters are also casting ballots in tribal elections this year. Did you cast a ballot in a tribal election in 2014? Are candidates still out talking to members of your community for an upcoming election? Do you vote only in your tribal elections? Or do you choose not to vote because you moved to the city and it’s hard to follow what’s going on back home? Join us as we explore tribal elections in our 2014 Election series on Native America Calling.
California COA Holds that Governor’s Concurrence under IGRA Does Not Trigger CEQA Review
Here is the opinion in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown:
We don’t have all the briefs, but here is what we do have:
NP Fresno Land Acquisitions Brief
Federal Court Dismisses Gustafson v. Poitra Dispute (Again)
Here are the materials in Gustafson v. Poitra (D. N.D.):
An excerpt:
The Court notes the equities clearly favor the Gustafsons, and the Court is sympathetic to the jurisdictional dilemma they find themselves in. The juvenile behavior and attitude of the Poitras that triggered the need for the issuance of the TRO in October 2012 is difficult for any reasonable person to understand. However, the plaintiffs cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a vehicle to resolve a multitude of long-standing disputes which neither raise a federal question nor bear any relationship to a lawsuit over which the Court would have jurisdiction.
We have posted on the multiple suits in this long-running dispute here, here, and here.
Friends of Amador County v. Jewell Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.
Lower court materials here.
Stay Pending Appeal Denied in Coeur d’Alene Gaming Dispute
Here are the new materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):
Utah Navajo Trust Fund Breach of Trust Suit May Proceed without United States
Here are the materials in Benally v. Herbert (D. Utah):
You must be logged in to post a comment.