Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Briefs in both cases here.
Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Briefs in both cases here.
Here is the opinion:
Briefs:
Keep in mind as to this case and the related Ninth Circuit case we posted a while ago here, this is about a nonmember sued by a tribe in tribal court for breach of contract, a nonmember who won before the tribal court, and now is suing the tribal judges, tribal employees, and the lawyers for the tribe for racketeering because the nonmember believes there was a conspiracy against him. The only reason this case exists is because of the Lewis v. Clarke decision (preceded by Ninth Circuit cases) that holds individuals who work for tribes sued in their individual capacities are not immune. Even if the nonmember’s claim here has validity (seems very unlikely but who knows?), this case is definitive proof that the Lewis v. Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. Clarke fiction that tribal employees sued in their individual capacity are somehow not engaged in tribal governmental activity and that the tribes that indemnify their employees are doing so for reasons unrelated to tribal governmental prerogatives. Here, we’re talking tribal judges (including an associate judge who was not assigned the case), a court clerk, and lawyers retained by the tribe to merely serve as counsel for the tribe, among others. They might all win below, as the court here suggests, but they have to make the correct arguments in what appears to be a game of whack-a-mole.
Here is the petition in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior:
Question presented:
Whether the Secretary can acquire land in trust on behalf of Indians whose federal supervision was terminated by Congress.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the petition in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta:
Questions presented:
1. Whether an Indian tribe incorporated by federal charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. § 5124) is an “Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior” authorized to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
2. Whether the Indian Trader Statutes (25 U.S.C. §§ 261-263) or the Bracker balancing test (see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980)) preempts the State of California’s regulation of intertribal cigarette sales, where an Indian tribe sells tribally manufactured cigarettes to Indian tribal buyers on their home reservations.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Here are the materials in Platform 10 LLC v. Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (D. Nev.):
14 Motion for Default Judgment

Here is the opinion in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. DeSantis (N.D. Fla.):
Briefs are here.
Here is today’s order list.
Here are the cert stage materials in Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Here is today’s order list.
Here are the cert stage materials.
Here are the materials in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians:
Findleton Brief A158171 A158172 A158173
You must be logged in to post a comment.