Ninth Circuit Briefs in Club One Casino v. Dept. of Interior [Challenge to IRA Section 5]

Here:

Opening Brief

DOI Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Sault Tribe Moves for Summary Judgment in Its Off-Rez Fee to Trust Claim

Here are the pleadings in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

43 Sault Tribe MSJ

45 Detroit Casinos MSJ

48 NHBP MSJ50 SCIT MSJ

54 Interior MSJ

56 Sault Tribe Reply

60 Detroit Casinos Reply

61 SCIT Reply

62 Interior Reply

63 NHBP Reply

Case tag here.

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe Sue under Homeland Act

Here is the complaint in Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

1-complaint-2.pdf

NIGC Affirms Approval of Ponca Tribe’s Gaming Ordinance on Remand from Federal Court

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.

Tribes and Detroit Casinos Allowed to Intervene in Sault Tribe Suit over Lansing and Wayne County Off-Rez Gaming Applications

Here are the materials so far in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Solicitor Opinion on Bay Mills

1-2 Wayne County Application

1-3 Lansing Application

1-4 Supplemental Materials

1-5 Jan 2017 Interior Letter

1-6 July 2017 Interior Decision

11 Answer

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

35 DCT Order

Prior posts on the Lansing/Wayne County casino proposals are here.

Bethany C. Sullivan & Jennifer L. Turner on Carcieri

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.

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Bernhardt Cert Petition [Chickasaw Gaming]

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.

Federal Court Issues Order in Council Bluffs v. DOI [Ponca Tribe]

Here are the materials in City of Council Bluffs v. United States Department of Interior (S.D. Iowa):

1 Complaint

13 Iowa Complaint

14 Nebraska Complaint

22-1 Council Bluffs MSJ

35-1 NIGC Cross MSJ

49 Ponca Amicus Brief

50 Council Bluffs Reply

53 NIGC Reply

55 DCT Order

I know it’s complicated. For the most part, the court’s decision favors Ponca and NIGC….

Materials (so far) in Challenge to Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria Trust Land Acquisition

Here are the materials in Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova LLC v. United States Department of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

22 Motion to Supplement Administrative Record

23 Response

24 Reply

28 DCT Order

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians Trust Land Acquisition Docs

Here are the materials in Crawford-Hall v. United States (C.D. Cal.):

69 notice

69-1 asia decision

69-3 2017 asia decision

69-4 2014 nod

Prior post here.