South Dakota SCT Declines to Grant Full Faith and Credit to Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribal Court Divorce Decree

Here is the opinion in Torgerson v. Torgerson:

Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams’ Cases and Materials in Federal Indian Law 2024-25 Update

Here.

California COA Decision on the Disqualification of California Indian Legal Services Attorneys in Quiet Title Action

Here is the opinion in Syre v. Douglas:

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Freedmen Descendants’ $90M Suit against Feds and Cherokee Nation

Here are the materials in Hinton v. Cherokee Nation (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

16-1 Cherokee Nation Motion to Dismiss

20 US Motion to Dismiss

25 Hinton Response to 16

26 Hinton Response to 20

27 US Reply ISO 20

28 Cherokee Nation Reply ISO 16

30 DCT Order

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Loses Trial in Federal Trust Breach Action Despite Federal Inaction that “dilutes a unique community and leading it one step closer towards decay”

Here are the updated materials in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

Prior post here.

This paragraph is brutal:

The evidence presented to the Court at trial was “both overwhelming and extremely underwhelming.” (Tr. Court, 1426:20). Witness testimony was poignant at times, on one occasion moving some in the courtroom audience to tears. Ultimately, however, the Tribe failed to shoulder its burden of proof; and despite the Court’s serious misgivings about the treatment of the Tribe, the Tribe did not show that the United States’ failure to repair the crumbling Building violated trust obligations or constituted to a taking. Even if the Tribe met the elements of a breach of trust or takings claim, its proof of damages was entirely unconvincing, dependent on construction costs in the city limits of Chicago and rental values derived from cursory internet searches. Accordingly, the United States is entitled to judgment.

Michigan Federal Court Asks Parties to Focus on Merits Rather than Discovery Squabbles in Tribes Suit against Insurance Company over Medicare-Like Rates

Here are new materials in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (E.D. Mich.):

295 SCIT Third Motion for Default Judgment

297 BCBS Response to 295

298 SCIT Reply ISO 295

299 BCBS Motion for Sanctions

302 SCIT Response to 299

303 BCBS Reply ISO 299

304 DCT Order

Most recent post here.

D.C. Federal Court Declines to Overturn Newland Opinion in California Miwok Tribe Membership Dispute

Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

Update on Osage Suit against Interior over Mineral Estate Regulation

Here are materials in Osage Nation v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

California Federal Court Orders Wilton Rancheria to Arbitration in Labor Dispute

Here are the materials in UNITE HERE v. Wilton Rancheria (E.D. Cal.):

Blumm & Eno on the Biden Administration’s Policies on Tribal Management of Ceded Lands

Michael C. Blumm and Adam Eno have posted “Tribal Co-Management in the Biden Administration: Affirming a Commitment to Honor Tribal Voices on Ceded Lands” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Native American Tribes transferred to the United States more than two billion acres of land over a century-and-a-half, as the federal government acquired land for white settlement. The land cessions left the Tribes with just 2.6% of the homelands. Most of the land ceded was eventually settled, but a significant portion was not and is now managed as federal public lands under supervision of a variety of federal agencies. Today, the U.S. has some 640 million acres in federal land ownership, about 28% of the total lands of the country. The Biden administration has taken significant, unprecedented steps to involve tribes in the management of their ceded lands. Implementation of the Biden initiatives may revolutionize public land management, although the process of instituting Tribal consultation and co-management is still underway. This article explains the Biden efforts at co-management, highlighting several on-the-ground initiatives. The article maintains that a proper interpretation of the land cession agreements-consistent with the judicial canons of construction for federal agreements with Tribes-would conclude that the tribal conveyances to the U.S. included an implicit promise that ceded lands that failed to achieve the settlement purpose would be managed with Tribal participation, in order to ensure the protection of important Tribal cultural, subsistence, and economic resources. Although the Biden initiatives are a welcome beginning to fulfilling this neglected promise, since they are merely implementing what should be seen as an implicit servitude demanding a Tribal voice in their unsettled, ceded lands, they should not be reversible by a subsequent administration.