Sixth Circuit Briefs in Sovereign Lending Case Involving Chippewa Cree Tribe

Here are the briefs in Swiger v. Rosette:

Lower court materials in Swiger v. Rosette (E.D. Mich.):

Federal Court Holds Hualapai Business Immune From Suit

Here are the materials in Zhang v. Grand Canyon Resort Corp. (C.D. Cal.):

57-first-amended-complaint.pdf

60-1-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

60-3-declaration.pdf

67-opposition.pdf

74-reply.pdf

76-dct-order.pdf

Arizona SCT Holds Tribal Company Did Not Establish Status as Subordinate Entity and Was Not Entitled to Immunity

Here is the opinion in Hwal’Bay Ba J Enterprises v. Jantzen:

hwalbay-v.-jantzen-ariz-2020.pdf

An excerpt:

An Indian tribe’s “subordinate economic organization” serves as an “arm of the tribe” and therefore shares its sovereign immunity. This tort case affords us an opportunity to identify factors courts should examine to decide whether a tribal entity serves in that capacity. After doing so, we conclude the tribal entity here did not prove it is a subordinate economic organization entitled to share the tribe’s immunity, and the superior court therefore did not err by denying the entity’s motion to dismiss.

Briefs are here.

Federal Court Certifies Tribal Lending Case for Interlocutory Appeal

Here are materials in Hengle v. Asner (E.D. Va.):

Native Wholesale Supply v. California ex rel. Becerra Cert Petition

Here:

Native Wholesale Petition

Appendix

Questions presented:

1. Whether a contract for the purchase of goods entered into, and fully performed by, an Indian Tribe outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the specific personal jurisdiction of the buyer’s state, under state laws purporting to regulate the sale of those goods in the buyer’s state.
2. Whether a state has specific personal jurisdiction to regulate a purchase of goods contract between an Indian on an Indian reservation outside the state and an Indian Tribe located within the state’s boundaries when the contract is performed on the
out of state Indian reservation.
3. Whether there is a constitutional or statutory right afforded to an Indian of one tribe to conduct business free from state regulation with an Indian of a different tribe, both of which are located in Indian country, under the Indian Commerce Clause.
4. Whether a tribally chartered corporation wholly owned by a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe is an Indian for purposes of the protections afforded to Indians under federal law.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Allows Class Action against Tribal Sovereign Lending of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake to Proceed

Here are the materials so far in Hengle v. Asner (E.D. Va.):

54 Amended Complaint

58 Asner Motion to Compel

60 Asner Motion to Dismiss

63 Tribal Officials Motion to Compel

65 Tribal Officials Motion to Dismiss

76 Tribe Amicus Brief

95 Response to 76

96 Response to 63

97 Response to 58

98 Response to 65

99 Response to 60

102 Amicus Brief of Tribal Amici Curiae

103 Reply in Support of 58

104 Reply in Support of 60

105 Reply in Support of 63

106 Reply in Support of 65

107 Response to 102

109 DCT Order