Here are the materials in South Dakota v. DOI (D. S.D.):
DCT Order Remanding to Interior
South Dakota Motion for Summary J
It should be noted that in this case South Dakota is challenging a trust acquisition called the Wagner Heights Addition. The land is to be used for tribal housing, and in fact the tribal housing is already there.
The title is A post-Carcieri vocabulary exercise: what if “now” really means “then”? The cite is 1 UNLV Gaming L.J. 39 (2010).
UPDATE: The article is available here.
Here is the opinion, via Indianz.
Here are the key materials:
USA Motion for Summary J in Gila River v US
Here is the Federal Register notice — Fed Reg 03.01.11
From Lance Boldrey:
Here is today’s Federal Register notice announcing that a compact for Warm Springs has been “deemed approved” notwithstanding that the ultimate effectiveness of the compact is conditioned on, among other things, the land being taken into trust at a future date. (The land is not yet in trust.) Although done without fanfare, this confirms that Interior has completely repudiated the so-called “Warm Springs” doctrine put in place during the Bush Administration. That doctrine, which reversed Interior’s historical practice, held that Interior would not approve a site-specific gaming compact unless and until the land was in trust. By rejecting that doctrine, the Obama Administration returns to a more sensible policy of allowing tribes and states to work out the parameters of gaming before land goes into trust.
“Treaty to Trust to Carcieri: The Economic Future for Indian Lands CLE Conference”
Hosted by the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU’s Indian Legal Program and the American Indian Policy Institute at ASU.
ASU Tempe Campus, Memorial Union, Ventana Ballroom
April 28 – 8:00 am – 5 pm
April 29 – 8:30 am – 1:00 pm
This conference will present and analyze comtemprary issues that impact tribal land management and strategic development. It will examine the history of Indian lands, integration of culture into planning, impact of global issues on reservation planning, impact of local issues on tribal land use, and the future of the fee-to-trust process. Participants will leave the conference with a knowledge that will allow tribes to grow and manage their land base in an economically efficient and culturally sensitive manner.
An excerpt from the ABQ Journal article:
A land dispute between Laguna Pueblo and a rancher prompted the New Mexico Court of Appeals to rule that tribal sovereignty shields tribes and pueblos from lawsuits involving lands they own outside their reservations.
The dispute centers on a 640-acre property in the Mount Taylor foothills. Cibola County rancher Robert Armijo contends he bought the property in 1994 from the Cebolleta Land Grant and has a warranty deed to prove it.
The Pueblo of Laguna claims the parcel is part of 8,300 acres the pueblo purchased in 2008 from Silver Dollar Ranch LLC.
In a Dec. 6 opinion, the Appeals Court found a district court judge lacked jurisdiction to decide who owns the property because the pueblo enjoys immunity from lawsuits, even if the land is outside its boundaries.
A legal concept called tribal sovereign immunity has long protected tribes and pueblos from lawsuits on tribal lands, which are held in trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
An attorney representing Armijo said the Court of Appeals ruling extends tribal sovereign immunity to “fee lands” purchased on the open market by tribes and pueblos but not held in trust.
“The decision is problematic,” Belen attorney Tibo Chavez said. “Sovereign immunity elevates the tribes above constitutionally protected property rights.”
The ruling may forestall any type of legal claim related to off-reservation properties owned by tribes and pueblos, he said.
“What if someone was injured on this land?” Chavez said. “Are there applications of negligence law that would apply?”
Albuquerque attorney Daniel Rey-Bear, who represents Pueblo of Laguna, declined to comment on the case.
Here is the complaint: Grand Ronde Complaint.
A companion suit filed by others is here.
Here.
Here is that opinion: South Dakota v Salazar.
And the cross-motions:
USA Motion to Dismiss — Sisseton case
SD Motion for Summary J — Sisseton case
It is apparent from South Dakota’s continuing challenges to Section 5 that they are hoping for a vehicle that could eventually justify Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of Section 5.
As Indianz reported. Here is the complaint: County-BIA_lawsuit (from The Columbian website).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.