Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the pleadings in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
Case tag here.
Here is the complaint in Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
Here is the order in In re: Gaming Ordinance of Ponca Tribe of Nebraska:
Revised Amendment to FDO – Ponca NE
The earlier federal court materials are here.
Here are the materials so far in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):
1-1 Solicitor Opinion on Bay Mills
1-6 July 2017 Interior Decision
16-1 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene
18-1 Detroit Casinos Motion to Intervene
20 Nottawaseppi Huron Band Motion to Intervene
28 Sault Tribe Opposition to Intervention Motions
29 Federal Opposition to Detroit Casinos Motion to Intervene
31 Saginaw Chippewa Reply in Support of 16
32 Detroit Casinos Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
33 NHBPI Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
Prior posts on the Lansing/Wayne County casino proposals are here.
Bethany C. Sullivan and Jennifer L. Turner have published “Enough Is Enough: Ten Years of Carcieri v. Salazar” in the Public Land & Resources Law Review. Here is the abstract:
Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its watershed decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, landing a gut punch to Indian country. Through that decision, the Supreme Court upended decades of Department of the Interior regulations, policy, and practice related to the eligibility of all federally recognized tribes for the restoration of tribal homelands through the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. The Court held that tribes must demonstrate that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934 to qualify for land into trust under the first definition of “Indian” in the IRA. Carcieri has impacted all tribes by upending the land-into-trust process and requiring tribes (and Interior) to spend scant resources to establish statutory authority for trust land acquisitions, a burdensome task that had previously been straight forward. In addition, Carcieri has complicated, if not prevented altogether, trust acquisition for tribes who face difficulty in making the requisite jurisdictional showing.
This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the last ten years of Indian law and policy that have unfurled from the Supreme Court’s decision. It describes how Carcieri has been weaponized by states, local governments, citizens’ groups, individuals, corporations, and even other tribes, to challenge the exercise of tribal sovereignty through the acquisition of tribal lands, and, at times, the very existence of Indian tribes. This Article details the litigation that has since ballooned, illustrating the dangerous scope creep of Carcieri, while categorizing and evaluating the underlying claims. It also looks to the future, and concludes that, while unlikely, a universal, clean congressional fix is the only real solution. The last ten years of litigation, hearings, and never-ending debate demonstrate that Carcieri is not a constructive or appropriate framework for resolving larger policy questions about the land-into-trust process. Finally, the Article ends by providing practice tips for tribes navigating the current Carcieri landscape.
Here is the petition captioned Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke [but presumably will switch to Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Bernhardt]:
Companche v Zinke Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the “former reservation” exception permitting lands acquired by the United States in trust for an Oklahoma Tribe after the effective date of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to be devoted to gaming purposes, is applicable to lands not subject to Tribal jurisdiction prior to the acquisition.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in City of Council Bluffs v. United States Department of Interior (S.D. Iowa):
I know it’s complicated. For the most part, the court’s decision favors Ponca and NIGC….
Here are the materials in Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova LLC v. United States Department of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Crawford-Hall v. United States (C.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.