Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer Cert Petition

Here:

Jamul Pet2

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.

Federal Court Dismisses Tribal Police Officer Suit against Moapa Band

Here are the materials in Dutchover v. Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (D. Nev.):

8 Amended Complaint

28 Motion to Dismiss

37 Response

42 Reply

53 DCT Order

Federal Suit against MHA Nation-Affiliated Lending Business Stayed Pending Fourth Circuit Decision in Hengle v. Treppa

Here are the materials in Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VII LLLP (D. Md.):

40 Amended Complaint

73-1 Motion to Stay

76 Opposition

82 DCT Order Granting Motion for Stay

The briefs in Hengle v. Treppa are here.

Federal Court in Oregon Declines to Dismiss Suit against Big Picture Loans-Affiliated Individual

Here are the materials so far in Smith v. Martorello (D. Or.):

100 Amended Complaint

106 Motion to Dismiss

120 Opposition

123 Reply

146 Magistrate Report

148 Objections

149 Rule 19 Motion

150 Response to 148

152 Response to 149

155 Reply in Support of 149

156 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Section 1983 Claim against Warm Springs Police Dept. Brought by Former Tribal Police Officer

Here are the materials in Weaver v. Gregory (D. Or.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

14 Response

16 Reply

18 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Muscogee (Creek) Nation Suit against Poarch Band Creek over Hickory Ground

Here are the materials in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (M.D. Ala.):

190 Second Amended Complaint

200 Federal Motion to Dismiss

202 Tribal Defendants Motion to Dismiss

205 Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss

210 Response to 200

211 Response to to 205

212 Response to 202

216 Reply in Support of 200

217 Reply in Support of 202

218 Reply in Support o 205

223 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Seneca County v. Cayuga Indian Nation Cert Petition

Here:

2021-02-17 Seneca County Petition Final

Lower court materials here.

Question presented:

This Court has twice granted certiorari to decide whether tribal sovereign immunity bars lawsuits concerning rights to property that a tribe acquires on the open market. See Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 138 S.Ct. 1649 (2018); Madison Cty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 562 U.S. 960 (2010) (mem.). Both times, however, subsequent developments prevented the Court from definitively answering the question. This case presents an opportunity to definitively answer that important and recurring question. In the decision below, the Second Circuit doubled down on the holding that this Court granted certiorari to review in Madison County, and again robbed this Court’s decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005), of practical effect by holding that if an Indian tribe purchases land on the open market and refuses to pay property taxes, there is nothing a local jurisdiction can do about it. That decision cannot be reconciled with Sherrill, and it effectively grants tribes a super immunity by rejecting the “uniform authority in support of the view that” the “immovable property” exception would preclude any sovereign’s efforts to invoke sovereign immunity in these circumstances. Upper Skagit, 138 S.Ct. at 1657 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
The question presented is:
Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars local tax authorities from collecting lawfully imposed property taxes by foreclosing on real property that a tribe has acquired on the open market.

North Dakota SCT Confirms Tribal Immunity Cloaks Tribal Business

Here are the materials in State of North Dakota by and through Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Cherokee Services Corp.:

2021ND36 — Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply