Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer Cert Petition

Here:

Jamul Pet2

Questions presented:

1. Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between “historic tribes” and “created tribes” and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity
2. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of “Indian tribal entities” eligible to receive BIA services.

Lower court materials here.

Interior’s Acquisition of Wyandotte Nation Trust Land Affirmed

Here are the materials in State of Kansas v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Kan.):

35 Interior Motion to Strike

34 Plaintiffs Motion

40 Interior Brief

36 Response to 35

42 DCT Order

41 Reply

Prior post here.

Catawba Nation Prevails against Cherokee Nations in Trust Land Matter

Here is the opinion in Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

77 DCT Order

Briefs here.

D.C. Circuit Affirms Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior [Wilton Rancheria]

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

This appeal comes after a seven year effort by the Department of the Interior (“Department”) to acquire land in trust on behalf of the Wilton Rancheria (“Wilton” or “Tribe”) to build a casino. After the Department finalized the acquisition of a parcel of land in Elk Grove, California, Stand Up for California! (“Stand Up”), Patty Johnson, Joe Teixeira, and Lynn Wheat (collectively “Appellants”) sued the Department. They brought a litany of claims, including claims that the Department (1) impermissibly delegated the authority to make a final agency action to acquire the land to an official who could not wield this authority, (2) was barred from acquiring land in trust on behalf of Wilton’s members, and (3) failed to adhere to its National Environmental Protection Act obligations when it selected the Elk Grove location. Appellants and the Department cross moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted the Department’s motions on all counts. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the District Court.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Dismisses Remaining Comanche Claims against US over Chickasaw Casino

Here are the materials in Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. de la Vega [formerly Zinke, then Bernhardt, and now should be Haaland] (W.D. Okla.):

106-1 Second Amended Complaint

113 Motion to Dismiss

120 Response

123 Reply

124 DCT Order

Prior posts here, here, and here.

Club One Casino v. Bernhardt Cert Petition [North Fork Rancheria]

Here is the petition in Club One Casino Inc. v. Bernhardt:

Club One Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Appendix

Lower court materials here and here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition

Reply

Administrative Law Review Podcast on the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s Federal Recognition Struggle

Here.

On today’s episode of A Hard Look, a Junior Staffer on ALR, Olivia Miller, joins host, Sarah Knarzer, and Professor Matthew Fletcher to discuss the tribal recognition process and the barriers it poses to tribes across the United States, and in particular the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. Earlier this year, and in the middle of a surging coronavirus pandemic, the Bureau of Indian Affairs announced its intention to revoke the Mashpee Wampanoag’s land from its federal trust. This action is only a continuation of the Mashpee Wampanoag’s four hundred year struggle for tribal survival, dating back to the origins of the Thanksgiving myth.

Olivia and Professor Fletcher discuss Olivia’s comment, which she wrote as part of ALR’s comment writing process, to identify why the tribal recognition process is such a difficult, expensive, and frustrating administrative process for tribes who want and need to be federally recognized.