Here is the amicus brief filed in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan Inc.:
sovereign immunity
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.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board OK Amicus Briefs on Tribal Immunity Issue
Here is the order in Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe:
California COA Affirms Tribal Official Immunity in Disenrollment Challenge at Elem Colony
Here is the opinion in Brown v. Garcia. PDF
An excerpt:
This case is different. As the trial court noted, Maxwell and Pistor make clear that the general rule is not dispositive if the lawsuit will encroach upon the tribe’s sovereignty. (See Maxwell, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 1088.) Here, substantial evidence established that defendants were tribal officials at the time of the alleged defamation and that they were acting within the scope of their tribal authority when they determined that, for the reasons stated in the allegedly defamatory Order of Disenrollment, plaintiffs should be disenrolled from the Tribe pursuant to a validly enacted tribal ordinance. On this record, which we have carefully reviewed, the trial court concluded that plaintiffs sought to hold defendants liable for actions they took as tribal officials in pursuing plaintiffs’ disenrollment from the Tribe on the basis of plaintiffs’ alleged unlawful acts. The court further found that adjudicating the dispute would require the court to determine whether tribal law authorized defendants to publish the Order and disenroll plaintiffs, “which itself requires an impermissible analysis of Tribal law and constitutes a determination of a non-justiciable inter-tribal dispute.”
Amerind Insurance Prevails over Blackfeet Housing
Here are the materials in Amerind Risk Management Corp. v. Blackfeet Housing Authority (D.N.M.):
28-1 amerind motion for summary j
Prior post here.
Federal Court Joins Tribe in Patent Texas Matter
Here are the relevant materials in Allergan Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (E.D. Tex.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.