Here is the order list from last Friday.
Here are the cert stage materials in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren.
Lower court materials here.
sovereign immunity
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Amicus Briefs on Tribal Immunity Issue
Here are the amici curiae in the matter of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe et al:
For Movants:
- Brief Amici Curiae of the National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Gaming Association, and the United South and Eastern Tribes in Support of Patent Holder the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss
- Amicus Curiae Brief of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in Support of Corrected Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Tribal Sovereign Immunity
- Brief of Amici Scholars in Support of Patent Owner the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
- Brief Amicus Curiae of the Seneca Nation in Support of the Patent Owner, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
- Brief of Amicus Curiae U.S. Inventor, LLC in Support of Patent Owner, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Native American Intellectual Property Enterprise Council, Inc. Regarding Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Luis Ortiz and Kermit Lopez in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Based on Tribal Sovereign Immunity
In Opposition:
- Brief of the High Tech Inventors Alliance, Computer & Communications Industry Association, and Internet Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
- Comments of Amici Curiae Deva Holding A.S. in Response to the Board’s Invitation for Amicus Briefs Regarding the Tribe’s Motion to Terminate
- Brief Of Askeladden LLC as Amicus Curiae in Opposition to St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss
- Brief of Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation as Amici Collegii in Opposition to the Motion to Terminate
- Brief Amicus Curiae of the Software and Information Industry Association in Support of Petitioners
- Amicus Curiae Brief of James R. Major, D.Phil. in Support of Petitioners’ Opposition to St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss
- Brief of the Association for Accessible Medicines as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Link: Case archive
Law Scholars Brief in Support of St. Regis Mohawk Patent
Here is the brief from Lawrence Tribe, William Eskridge, Erwin Chemerinsky, Joe Singer, and David Orozco:
California COA Rejects Defamation Claim by Tribal Disenrollees against Elem Indian Colony Pomo Tribe
Oglala Sioux Tribe Amicus Brief in St. Regis Mohawk Patent Matter
Here is the amicus brief filed in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan Inc.:
Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Barboan Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Does 25 U.S.C. § 357 authorize a condemnation action against a parcel of allotted land in which an Indian tribe has a fractional beneficial interest, especially where (a) the the tribe holds less than a majority interest, (b) the purpose of condemnation is to maintain a long-standing right-of-way for a public utility, and (c) the statute was not “passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes.” Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 89 (1918)?
2. If 25 U.S.C. § 357 authorizes such a condemnation action, may the action move forward if the Indian tribe invokes sovereign immunity and cannot be joined as a party to the action?
Lower court materials here.
Update in KBIC Suit against Michigan Treasury Dept.
Here are the materials in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):
99 state motion re state prosecutions
115 kb motion for protective order
Rick Collins on Tribal Immunity
Richard B. Collins posted “To Sue and Be Sued: Capacity and Immunity of American Indian Nations,” forthcoming in the Creighton Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Can American Indian nations sue and be sued in federal and state courts? Specific issues are whether tribes have corporate capacity to sue, whether a Native group has recognized status as a tribe, and whether and to what extent tribes and their officers have governmental immunity from suit. Tribal capacity to sue is now well established, and federal law has well-defined procedures and rules for tribal recognition. But tribal sovereign immunity is actively disputed.
This paper reviews retained tribal sovereignty in general and summarizes past contests over tribal capacity to sue and their resolution into today’s settled rule. Next is a concise statement of the law on federal recognition of tribal entities. Most of the paper explains and analyzes ongoing issues about tribal immunity from suit. Tribal immunity has been continuously recognized from the first reported decision, but tribes’ commercial activities, modern attacks on immunity generally, and states rights proclivities of some justices jeopardize its existence. Much active litigation involves suits against tribal officers and possible application of the Ex parte Young doctrine. For many reasons, tribes are adopting carefully defined consents to suit, particularly in relation to tribal casinos. This paper’s essential purpose is to give tribes and their lawyers a full account of the law on tribal immunity and current disputes about it.
Arizona COA Affirms Hualapai Official Immunity from Contract Damages Suit
Here is the unpublished opinion in WD at the Canyon v. Honga.
Split Utah SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity, Adopts Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine
Here is the opinion in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe.
UPDATE (11/10/17) Briefs:
Appellee’s Brief-Ute Indian Tribe
Response to Supplemental Authority-Appellee 1
Response to Supplemental Authority-Appellee 2
Supplemental Authority-Appellant
An excerpt:
The oil and gas industry is a major economic force in the Uintah Basin. This industry relies, to some extent, on access to the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. The plaintiffs allege that, through its ability to restrict the industry’s access to tribal lands, the tribe has held hostage the economy of the non-Indian population.
Ryan Harvey, a plaintiff and part owner of the two corporations that are the other plaintiffs in this case, alleges that tribal officials from the Ute Tribe attempted to extort him by threatening to shut down his businesses if he did not acquiesce to their demands, despite the fact that his businesses do not operate directly on tribal land. After his refusal to make certain payments, the tribal officials sent a letter to the oil and gas companies operating on tribal land informing them that they would be subject to sanctions if they used any of Harvey’s businesses. The tribal official’s letter dried up a large portion of Harvey’s business, and Harvey brought claims against the tribe, the tribal officials, various companies owned by the tribal officials, oil and gas companies, and other private companies he alleges are complicit in this extortionate behavior. Most of the defendants filed motions to dismiss on various grounds and the district court dismissed Harvey’s claims against all of the defendants. On direct appeal, Harvey seeks to set aside the dismissals. We affirm the dismissal of the Ute Tribe under sovereign immunity and the dismissal of Newfield, LaRose Construction, and D. Ray C. Enterprises for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But we vacate the dismissal of the remaining defendants and remand for further proceedings consistent with the tribal exhaustion doctrine.
If anyone has the briefs in this fascinating case, please send them along.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.