Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Navajo Citizen in Relocation Costs Suit

Here is the opinion in Barton v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.

Briefs:

Barton Brief

Answer Brief

Record

Osage Nation Seeks to Relitigate Reservation Boundaries in Light of McGirt

Here is the pleading in Osage Nation v. Wood (N.D. Okla.):

This is the opinion at issue.

Siletz Consent Decree and Restoration of Hunting and Fishing Rights

From Craig Dorsay:

After 44 years, the severe restrictions imposed on the exercise of hunting and fishing rights by the Siletz Tribe have been removed, and the Tribe is now free to claim and assert treaty rights as it sees fit. The original restrictions were imposed on the Tribe by the State of Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, as the price for the State not opposing Siletz’s restoration as a federally-recognized tribe in 1977 or obtaining a modest reservation in 1980. The State attorney at the time – this was in the middle of the Northwest treaty fishing wars -made sure these restrictions were ironclad and permanent by requiring the Siletz Tribe to enter into an Agreement on the exercise of hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights severely restricting those rights, and then incorporating that restrictive agreement in a “friendly” federal court decree as well as the Tribe’s federal legislation restoring a modest reservation for the Tribe. (copy of 1980 Agreement and federal court decree attached).

The State strictly enforced this Agreement until Governor Kate Brown in 2016 agreed that this Agreement and arrangement was unconscionable, and cooperated with the Tribe in getting it lifted. This cooperation resulted in federal legislation in 2023 removing the applicable reference from the Tribe’s Reservation Act, and in a November 2024 Court Order vacating the original 1980 federal court decree. A copy of the legislation, the joint motion to vacate the consent decree, and the Court Order are also attached.

Materials here:

Navajo Sues for $25M Tribal Court Contract

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

Update in Yakama v. Toppenish [Tribal Shelter]

Here are pleadings so far in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

4 Motion for TRO

9 DCT Order Granting PI

12 City Response to 4

15 Yakama Supplemental Response

18 DCT Order Extending PI

20 City Supplemental Response to 1 

DOJ Suits Against Oklahoma Prosecutors

Here are the pleadings in United States v. Iski (N.D. Okla.):

And here are the pleadings in United States v. Ballard (N.D. Okla.):

Blast from the Past: News Coverage of Wandahsega/Hannahville Indian Community Pre-ICWA Indian Child Welfare Victory over Michigan Social Services

Here from Neshnawbe News, Nov./Dec. 1973:

Here is the decision.