Wenona Singel and I are delighted and honored to speak at Colorado’s symposium on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community. Thanks to Rick Collins, Sarah Krakoff, Carla Fredericks, Kristen Carpenter, and the rest of the great people at CU.
In honor of the Michigan-centric character if this symposium, it snowed in Boulder.
I am honored to share the stage with Kathryn Tierney, the general counsel for the Bay Mills Indian Community. She is a legend, going back to her work on the LCO treaty rights cases in Wisconsin, the LeBlanc matter in Michigan, and United States v. Michigan. Wenona and I know her from the more calmer days of negotiating the Michigan tax agreements a decade ago.
I’ll be patching together a short talk about lessons we can learn from the decision from the successful strategic moves made by Bay Mills.
Here is the news release. An excerpt:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, beginning at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral arguments in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California, in which the state appeals the summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria, an Indian reservation near Eureka. The lower court determined that the state violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact.
Here is the panel: Alex Kozinski, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Susan Graber, William Fletcher, Richard Paez, Jay S. Bybee, Milan Smith, Morgan Christen, and Jacqueline Nguyen
En banc materials here.
Panel materials here.
Here are the updated materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):
35 DCT Order Staying Proceedings
An excerpt:
The Court has before it Defendant Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 15) and Plaintiff the State of Idaho’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkts. 3, 4). The Court previously stayed this lawsuit based on the Tribe’s argument that the parties had agreed to arbitrate this dispute. See June 23, 2014 Order, Dkt. 35. Afterward, the Tribe changed its mind and decided it would prefer to litigate. The Court will therefore address the pending motions. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the Tribe’s motion to dismiss and grant the State’s motion for injunctive relief.
Here are the new materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
37 Aquinnah Community Association Motion to Intervene + Proposed Complaint
39 Town of Aquinnah Motion to Intervene
41 Wampanoag Opposition to Town Motion
42 Wampanoag Opposition to Community Association Motion
Here are the new materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
37 Aquinnah Community Association Motion to Intervene + Proposed Complaint
39 Town of Aquinnah Motion to Intervene
41 Wampanoag Opposition to Town Motion
42 Wampanoag Opposition to Community Association Motion
Here is the complaint in Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria v. California (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
This is an action brought under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i), to compel Defendant the State of California (the “State” or “California”) to comply with IGRA’s requirement that it negotiate in good faith with Plaintiff Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria (“the Tribe”) for the purpose of entering into a tribal-state gaming compact pursuant to IGRA.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.