Race Discrimination Complaint against Tulalip Resort Casino Dismissed

Apparently, this is the fifth suit brought by this particular plaintiff, and the third one in federal court. The case is Parks v. Tulalip Resort Casino (W.D. Wash.). Our earlier post on the first case is here.

Here are the materials:

DCT Order Dismissing Parks Third Federal Suit

Tulalip Motion to Dismiss

Parks’ Response

Tulalip Reply

Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment in Bivens Claim against Tribal Police

Here is the opinion in Murgia v. United States (D. Ariz.), on remand from the Ninth Circuit: Order on MSJ 04-28-10.

Here are the Ninth Circuit materials.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Immunity of Santa Ana Pueblo Officials in Section 1985 Suit

The opinion in Burrell v. Armijo is here.

Here are the briefs:

Armijo Opening Brief

Burrell Brief

Montoya Answer Brief

Armijo Reply

Congrats to Richard Hughes.

Second Circuit Affirms Oneida Indian Nation’s Immunity from County Land Foreclosure Efforts

Here is the opinion in Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County: Oneida v Madison County et al 05-6408

Title VII and ADEA Claims against Cherokee Business Dismissed

Here are the materials in Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distributors (W.D. Okla.):

CND Motion to Dismiss

Somerlott Response

CND Reply

CND Notice of Supplemental Authority

DCT Order Dismissing Title VII and ADEA Claims

Kiowa Casino Operating Authority Dismissed from Contract Arbitration

The case is Swanda Brothers Inc v. Chasco Constructors Ltd LLP (W.D. Okla.). Here are the materials:

DCT Order Dismissing KCOA

KCOA Motion to Dismiss

Chasco Response

KCOA Reply

Section 1983 Claim against Tribal Police Dismissed

Here are the materials in Ouart v. Fleming (W.D. Okla.):

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Co-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Response

DCT Order Granting Motion

Shingle Springs Petition for Review Denied

Here is the news article via Pechanga announcing the California Supreme Court’s order. And here are the briefs:

Shingle Springs Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Loses Claims re: Tribal Housing Board Member Suspensions

Here are the most recent materials (the government’s motion to dismiss and earlier materials are here):

DCT Order Granting Government Motion to Dismiss

CCST Motion for Summary Judgment

New Scholarship on Gaming and Tribal Membership

Suzianne Painter-Thorne has published “If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Face of Tribal Membership” in the Lewis & Clark Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This Article considers recent disputes over membership decisions made by American Indian tribal governments. Since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, Indian casinos have flourished on some tribal reservations. Some argue that the new wealth brought by casinos has increased fights over membership as tribes seek to expel current members or refuse to admit new members. It is difficult to discern whether there are more disputes over tribal enrollment as a consequence of gaming or whether such disputes are now more public because gaming has brought tribes to the forefront of U.S. culture. What is clear is that enrollment disputes are receiving increased attention, resulting in calls for some change to address what many perceive as a fundamental unfairness in tribal decision making.

Aggrieved members’ attempts to resort to federal or state court are blocked due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and because of the tribes’ sovereign immunity. Activists and courts have sought to change this, seeking to curtail the tribes’ sovereign immunity, expand federal court jurisdiction to permit oversight, or otherwise impose U.S. law on tribal membership decisions. Scholars are divided, with some arguing for the abrogation of immunity or sovereignty, while others argue that the tribes’ decisions are sacrosanct. Still others argue over how the tribes should define membership–contending that it should be based on cultural identity, political participation, blood quantity, or even DNA.

This Article argues that the focus should instead be on solutions that come from within the tribes. For too long the tribes have suffered from the imposition of legal and cultural norms that do not reflect their identity or culture. Because a tribe’s right to define its membership lies at the heart of its sovereignty, the solution is more, not less, sovereignty for the tribes. To remedy the impasse, I propose that tribes create separate independent judicial bodies, or an intertribal appellate court that would provide independent review of tribal membership decisions.