Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept.of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
37 north fork rancheria motion for summary j
39 north fork opposition to 29
41 interior motion for summary j
46 sufc opposition to motions for summary j
51 north fork reply in support of 37
Here is the unpublished opinion in California Miwok Tribe v. Everone:
Here are the materials in Club One Casino v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
36-1 club one casino motion for summary j
Prior post here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. This case presents the question whether the Secretary may conclude that a casino “would not be detrimental to the surrounding community” despite uncontroverted evidence the casino will have unmitigated detrimental impacts to the community.
2. This case presents the question whether multiple Indians residing on the same reservation are, per se, an “Indian tribe” irrespective of the individual Indians‘ tribal affiliations, if any.
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Question presented:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the District Court’s confirmation and enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
UPDATE:
Here is the opinion in United States v. Jim.
Briefs here.
Here are the materials in FSS Development Company LLC v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (W.D. Okla.):
Here are the materials so far in Clark v. Harrah’s NC Casino Company LLC (W.D. N.C.):
Here is the petition in County of Amador v. Dept. of the Interior:
UPDATE: Cert Opp
Questions presented:
1. Whether Congress intended the phrase “under Federal jurisdiction,” as used in the 1934 Act, to encompass a tribe that, as of June 18, 1934, had no land held on its behalf by the federal government, either in trust or as allotments; was not a party to any treaty with the United States; did not receive services or benefits from the federal government; did not have members enrolled with the Indian Office; and which was not invited to organize under the IRA in 1934 by the Secretary like other recognized tribes in Amador County; but for whom the federal government had unsuccessfully attempted to purchase land pursuant to a generic appropriation authorizing the purchase of land for unspecified “landless Indians” in California?
2. Whether the Secretary’s authority to take land into trust for “members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction” requires that the tribe have been “recognized” in 1934, in addition to being “under Federaljurisdiction” at that time, or whether such “recognition” can come decades after the statute’s enactment?
3. Whether the Secretary, having explicitly concluded that in enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Congress intended that Indian tribes “restored to Federal recognition” refers only to tribes that are “restored” pursuant to (a) congressional legislation, (b) a judgment or settlement agreement in a federal court case to which the United States is a party, or (c) “through the administrative Federal Acknowledgment Process under [25 C.F.R. § 83.8],” and having embodied that conclusion in a formal regulation, 25 C.F.R. § 292.10, can then act contrary to Congress’s intention by “grandfathering in” a preliminary (i.e., non-final) agency action treating Indians who do not meet the regulatory definition as “restored”?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.