Here are the materials relevant to Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB.
Supreme Court cert stage briefs
Little River Petition and Appendix COMBINED
Final CO-UMUT Amicus Cert Petition – Saginaw Chippewa and LRB
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Sixth Circuit En Banc Stage Continue reading
Here is the petition in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:
Question presented:
In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), this Court held that a waiver of state sovereign immunity must be “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Id. at 673 (alteration omitted). This case concerns a gaming compact between the State of California and the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation. Both parties waived their sovereign immunity from suits arising under the compact, but only to the extent that “[n]either side makes any claim for monetary damages (that is, only injunctive, specific performance, including enforcement of a provision of this Compact requiring payment of money to one or another of the parties, or declaratory relief is sought) . . . .” App. 28a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that this limited waiver, which also appears in gaming compacts between California and 57 other tribes, waived the State’s immunity with respect to an award of $36.2 million in restitution.
The question presented is: Whether, under Edelman, the language of the limited waiver—which expressly excludes claims for “monetary damages” and references only injunctive relief, specific performance, and declaratory relief— waived the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to the district court’s monetary award.
Download the report here.
Link to South Bend Tribune article here.
Excerpt:
In the meantime, the deal will allow tribal police officers to enforce Indiana laws in St. Joseph County, including on the 1700 acres of Pokagon land near North Liberty and the 166 acres between Prairie Avenue, Locust Road and the St. Joseph Valley Parkway.
“With the Pokagon Band restoring the tribal village here in South Bend, we thought it was our duty to work with St. Joseph County to enhance public safety in this area,” said tribal Chairman John Warren.
Doc. 1- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Frank’s Landing Indian Community is suing the National Indian Gaming Commission for rejecting its class II gaming regulations. The Commission ruled in March that the Community is not a federally-recognized Tribe for the purposes of IGRA. Frank’s Landing was recognized by Congress in 1994.
Briefs and orders on the motion for summary judgment in re Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head:
Plaintiffs’ Motion
Doc. 113 – Commonwealth’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 117 – Town of Aquinnah’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 121 – AGHCA’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 133 – Wampanoag Tribe’s opposition brief
Doc. 144 – Town of Aquinnah’s reply brief
Doc. 145 – AGHCA’s reply brief
Doc. 147 – Commonwealth’s reply brief
Defendant’s Motion
Doc. 119 – Wampanoag Tribe’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 131 – Plaintiffs’ opposition brief
Doc. 150 – Wampanoag Tribe’s reply brief
Doc. 151 – Memorandum and Order
Mass. District Court has granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth against the Wampanoag Tribe (Aquinnah) for its proposed class II gaming facility on settlement lands. The Court ruled that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 did not repeal the Massachusetts Settlement Act of 1987 which prohibited gaming on settlement lands.
The Mashpee Tribe is planning to locate its casino in Taunton, a struggling city in Southeastern Massachusetts, the city where my grandparents lived in fact. The land deal was just finalized. It sounds like the economic development will be a win-win for the Tribe and the Taunton. Here’s the Taunton Daily Gazette story. Previous coverage here.
The complaint, filed in federal district court in Connecticut on August 4, is here: 273548545-MGM-v-Malloy Complaint.
The state law, signed by the Governor on June 19, 2015, is here.
From the complaint:
MGM seeks to have the Act declared invalid and enjoined on two principle bases:
a. The Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is a race-based set-aside in favor of the two Preferred Tribes at the expense of all other tribes, races, and entities; and
b. The Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates on its face in favor of the two in-state Preferred Tribes at the expense of out-of-state competitors, all of whom are barred from attempting to develop a casino gaming facility in Connecticut.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.