Here are the materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):
19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss
29 – Nooksack Tribe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
39 – Secretary’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Villa v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission (W.D. Wash.):
33 Frank’s Landing Motion for Summary J
Here are the materials so far in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Jewell (D.D.C.):
Update:
Here is opinion M-37040.
In short, 1989 opinion overruled.
Here are the materials in Chakchiuma Nation v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Here:
Questions presented:
Whether the Court of Appeals deviated from this Court’s decision in Carcieri v Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) which held that the Secretary of Interior’s Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) established in 25 C.F.R. Part 83 is not determinative as to whether Indian Tribe is “recognized” for the purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 479)?
Whether the Secretary of Interior can avoid performing her mandatory non-discretionary duty under the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 476) to call elections to ratify tribal constitutional documents within a reasonable time by requiring a tribe to exhaust administrative remedies estimated to require 30 years to complete?
Lower court materials here.
Kirsten Matoy Carlson has posted “Why Lobby Congress? Constitutive and Instrumental Influences on Indian Groups’ Strategies for Federal Recognition, 1977-2012” on SSRN. This paper is highly recommended.
Here is the abstract:
When and why do marginalized groups chose a particular institutional venue when pursuing their legal claims? This article combines theoretical and methodological insights from sociolegal and interest group studies to investigate why non-federally recognized Indian groups used legislative strategies for federal recognition from 1977 to 2012. It finds Indian groups employed legislative strategies both to increase their chances of success and for constitutive purposes, including educating the public and leveraging institutional tensions. The article’s emphasis on constitutive and instrumental motivations provides a more nuanced approach to understanding marginalized groups’ venue decisions.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.