Termination-Bent Alaskans Sue NIGC Over Opinion that Trust Allotments in Alaska are Gaming-Eligible

Here is the complaint in Holl v. Avery (D. Alaska):

Ninth Circuit Affirms Rule 19 Dismissal of Maverick Gaming Suit

Here is the opinion in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States.

Briefs here.

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland Cert Petition [all cert stage briefs]

Here:

Questions presented:

The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”) established a Self-Sufficiency Fund for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to receive judgment funds that settled claims against the United States for the unconscionable taking of tribal lands. The statute, which codified a negotiated agreement between the Tribe and the United States, gave the Tribe’s Board of Directors exclusive authority over the Self-Sufficiency Fund, including determinations about the proper use of Fund capital and interest. The broad purposes for which the Tribe may expend Fund interest under MILCSA include the “enhancement of tribal lands.” §108(c)(5). And MILCSA requires the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust “[a]ny lands” acquired with Fund interest. §108(f). The questions presented are:

  1. Whether Congress delegated to the Department of the Interior under MILCSA the authority to reject a mandatory trust submission based on the agency’s own view about whether the purchase of land satisfied §108(c), notwithstanding the statutory command that “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the [Tribe’s] Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the benefit of the tribe.” §108(f).
  2. Whether “enhancement of tribal lands” in §108(c)(5) of MILCSA includes a land acquisition that adds to or augments the size of the Tribe’s total landholdings.

Lower court materials here.

Additional briefs:

cert_opposition

reply

Chukchansi Sues California over Class III Gaming Compact Negotiations

Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians v. Newsom (C.D. Cal.):

Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Fort Sill Apache Gaming

Here are the materials in Comanche Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (W.D. Okla.), formerly Kiowa Tribe v. Dept. of the Interior:

51 Amended Complaint

53 Comanche Motion for PI

59 Fort Sill Motion to Dismiss

60 Fort Sill Opposition to 53

63 Federal Motion to Dismiss

64 Federal Opposition to 53

66 Comanche Reply ISO 53

80 Comanche Response to 59

81 Comanche Response to 63

91 Fort Sill Reply ISO 59 — Comanche

102 Kiowa Opposition to 59

103 Kiowa Response to 63

107 Fort Reply ISO 59 — Kiowa

108 Federal Reply ISO 63

123 Fort Sill Supplemental MTD

124 Federal Supplemental MTD

126 Comanche Opposition to 123

129 Fort Sill Reply ISO 123

130 Comanche Opposition to 124

131 Federal Reply ISO 124

139 DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss

Original complaint here.

California Federal Court Orders Augustine Band and State of California to Reach Class III Gaming Compact within 60 Days

Here are the materials in Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians v. State of California (C.D. Cal.):

D.C. Circuit Again Rejects Sault Tribe Mandatory Trust Land Acquisition Claims

Here is the unpublished opinion in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland:

Briefs here. Lower court materials here.

just like Father Baraga telling Indians what they can and cannot do

SCOTUS Denies Cert in West Flagler v. Haaland

Here is today’s order list. Justice Jackson is ethical and recused herself. Justice Kavanaugh would have granted the petition.

Cert petition and link to lower court materials here.

Federal Brief in Opposition to Cert in West Flagler v. Haaland

Here:

The petition is here.

No Casino in Plymouth v. NIGC Cert Petition

Here:

Questions presented:

  1. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to DOI’s approval of a trust transfer for the Ione Band which was not a recognized tribe in 1934 as required by the IRA?
  2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to NIGC’s authority to approve a gaming ordinance for the Ione Band which has no Indian lands as defined by IGRA?
  3. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that federal acknowledgement as a tribe under 25 CFR Part 83 is a prerequisite for the Ione Band to receive IRA and IGRA benefits?

Lower court materials here.