Here.
Briefs here.
Here:
An excerpt:
After deciding California law empowers the Governor to concur, the Supreme Court transferred this case back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the matter in light of United Auburn. We conclude the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in United Auburn because at the November 2014 general election California voters rejected the Legislature’s ratification of the tribal-state compact for gaming at the Madera site. As described below, we conclude the people retained the power to annul a concurrence by the Governor and the voters exercised this retained power at the 2014 election by impliedly revoking the concurrence for the Madera site. As a result, the concurrence is no longer valid, and the demurrer should have been overruled.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between “historic tribes” and “created tribes” and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity
2. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of “Indian tribal entities” eligible to receive BIA services.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in State of Kansas v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Kan.):
Prior post here.
Here is the complaint and associated materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. Wilson (D.N.M.):
Here is the opinion in Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):
Briefs here.
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
This appeal comes after a seven year effort by the Department of the Interior (“Department”) to acquire land in trust on behalf of the Wilton Rancheria (“Wilton” or “Tribe”) to build a casino. After the Department finalized the acquisition of a parcel of land in Elk Grove, California, Stand Up for California! (“Stand Up”), Patty Johnson, Joe Teixeira, and Lynn Wheat (collectively “Appellants”) sued the Department. They brought a litany of claims, including claims that the Department (1) impermissibly delegated the authority to make a final agency action to acquire the land to an official who could not wield this authority, (2) was barred from acquiring land in trust on behalf of Wilton’s members, and (3) failed to adhere to its National Environmental Protection Act obligations when it selected the Elk Grove location. Appellants and the Department cross moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted the Department’s motions on all counts. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the District Court.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. (N.D. N.Y.):
The complaint is here.
Here are the materials in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):
35-1 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment
38-1 State Motion for Summary Judgment
Prior post here.
Update (5/30/21):
You must be logged in to post a comment.