Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Confirming Arbitration Award
GCSD Application to Enforce Arbitration Award
economic development
Cayuga Indian Nation RFP: Tribal Economic Development
CAYUGA NATION — Request for Proposals
The Cayuga Nation in New York State requests proposals from qualified firms or individuals to advise the Nation in preparing a plan to develop the Nation’s economy.
The Cayuga Nation is a federally-recognized sovereign Indian nation. It is a member nation of the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Confederacy. The Nation is governed according to a traditional Haudenosaunee and Cayuga law and custom. The Nation has approximately 485 enrolled citizens. The Nation currently does not own any land that is held in trust by the federal government. It holds several parcels of land in fee simple ownership. The Treaty of Canandaigua of 1794 recognized a Cayuga Reservation of approximately 64,000 acres in Seneca and Cayuga Counties, New York. The boundaries of this Reservation have never been terminated. The Nation does not own or operate a casino or other gambling enterprise. It owns and operates a number of small enterprises within the Cayuga Reservation. The Nation does not have a separate economic development corporation.
More details in the RPF:
Wells Fargo Motion for TRO against Moapa Tribal Court Denied
Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Advisors v. Kolhoss (D. Nev.):
Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss — Moapa Tribal Court [corrected]
From the federal court order:
Plaintiffs initiate this declaratory relief action seeking to declare that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because the Tribe has waived sovereign immunity and agreed to arbitration. Plaintiffs seek an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin the tribal court from proceeding with a hearing scheduled for February 7, 2013. However, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion because (1) the Motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the District of Nevada Local Rules; (2) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of an emergency; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm should the Court deny their Motion.
International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands Projects
Legal analysis on the import of the treaty from the international law scholars at Opinio Juris, here. An excerpt:
Beyond the U.S. law, there’s also a fairly interesting issue of how international law regards this sort of treaty-making. As I’ve written previously, international law imposes two conditions on treaty-making by a sub-national actor: (1) explicit treaty-making authority from the State of which it is a component part (whether ex-ante or ex-post); and (2) the consent of potential treaty-partners to the sub-national actors’ participation in the treaty itself. Here, it seems we have a willing group of treaty partners, so the treaty seems OK on the second element (that is, assuming the Canadian First Nations are themselves authorized to make treaties under Canadian law). Still, there are questions as to whether the United States has to authorize this treaty, whether it has done so (or will need to do so going forward), and why it would ever do so when the treaty’s objective would be to lobby and/or constrain federal government behavior. Now, there is an argument that, as indigenous peoples, Native American tribes should not be subject to the standard rules for treaty-making by sub-national actors (indeed, Article 36(1) of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights makes just such a claim). But, the United States was one of four nations to object to that Declaration (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), so I’m hard pressed to see it getting traction in this case, especially where the treaty involves an alliance of indigenous peoples to oppose federal licensing efforts (and with it perhaps some key aspects of U.S. energy policy).
As such, I think the ball is now firmly in the Obama Administration’s court. I’m interested to see how it responds to this treaty (including, which Agency takes the lead in responding to it). I suppose silence is a possible course of action. But, if the federal government remains silent, I think that might lead to arguments of U.S. tacit approval for this treaty in particular, and even more broadly, a right of treaty making with foreign powers for U.S. Native American tribes.
For a primer on intertribal treaty making, see Wenona Singel’s Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability (email me if you want a pdf).
Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Navajo Employment Preference Law against Salt River Project
Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Granting Salt River Project Motion
Salt River Project Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.
For more background on the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, see Howard Brown and Ray Austin’s excellent article here.
LSJ Article about Lansing Casino Lawsuit
Here.
GRAND RAPIDS — A federal judge Wednesday said he could decide within 30 days whether to allow Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to halt a proposed Lansing casino.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker announced the timeline after attorneys from the state and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians argued in a Grand Rapids courtroom about whether Schuette’s six-count lawsuit, filed in September, should be dismissed.
Earlier coverage here.
N.Y. Trial Court Holds Lower Brule Corporation Not Immune from Discovery in Loan Dispute
Here is the opinion in Seaport Loan Products LLC v. Lower Brule Community (N.Y. Supreme Ct.):
Seaport-LBCDE – Decision re Motion to Compel
News coverage: NY Law Journal Article (Sovereign Immunity)
The complaint is here.
Washington COA Holds State Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Tribal Corporation
Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:
And the briefs:
Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012
New Scholarship Recommending Curbs on Tribal Payday Lenders
Heather L. Pretrovich, a North Carolina law student, has published Circumventing State Consumer Protection Laws: Tribal Immunity and Internet Payday Lending in the North Carolina Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
As tribal payday lending becomes more prevalent, there is a dire need for federal action to halt the trend’s momentum. In 2010, tribal payday lenders made up “[m]ore than 35 of the 300” Internet payday lenders and made “about $420 million in payday loans.” The need for regulation of this conduct is imminent—“[s]ome observers predict that the number of tribes with payday-loan operations eventually could climb close to the 400 that now have casinos.” Additionally, various lenders have shown an interest in copying the tribal lending business model, which will likely result in additional industry growth. In the absence of federal regulation, the number of companies targeting consumers will increase, rendering previous state regulation efforts futile.
This Comment argues that federal action is necessary to block attempts by payday lenders to bypass consumer protection laws by organizing as tribal entities. Because the federal government does not currently regulate payday lending and tribes are immune from state suit, states are unable to protect their consumers from the practices that they have previously fought to curtail. Due to these obstacles, this Comment proposes possible solutions that can prevent tribal payday lending companies from circumventing state consumer protection laws. Part I provides background information introducing the specific problems that states have encountered in their initial regulation efforts against these companies. Part II describes why tribal payday lending cases are so rare and analyzes this body of case law. Part III analyzes why state regulation is inadequate and the reasoning behind the need for a federal response to this practice. Finally, Part IV examines what courses of action may be taken and which of those proposals are most likely to quickly and effectively address the problem.
Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Pojoaque Tribal Gaming Contract Dispute
Here are the materials in Fine Consulting, Inc. v. Rivera (D. N.M.):
DCT Order Granting Rivera Motion
If anyone doubts the impact of good Indian law scholarship, then look here. Sarah Krakoff’s excellent Colorado Law Review article Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide for Judges is all over this opinion.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.