Here are the materials in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.):
sovereign immunity
Florida COA Affirms Tribal Immunity Defense in Miccosukee Tribe v. Lewis & Tein
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
“There are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine” of tribal immunity. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 758 (1998). It “can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.” Id. No one knows this more than Guy Lewis and Michael Tein. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, according to Lewis and Tein’s complaint, spent five years filing false lawsuits, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice, in an effort to damage the attorneys’ finances, reputations, and law firm. Whatever its wisdom, tribal immunity endures, and Indian tribes are not subject to the civil jurisdiction of our courts absent a clear, explicit, and unmistakable waiver of tribal sovereign immunity or a congressional abrogation of that immunity. Because neither exception to tribal immunity has been established in this case, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Miccosukee Tribe’s motion to dismiss.
UPDATE (9/7/17):
Federal Court Dismisses Gaming Contract Breach against Picayune Rancheria
Here are the materials in Osceola Blackwood Ivory Gaming Group LLC v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. United States
Tucker Act Breach Claim against US over Keepseagle Settlement Dismissed
Here are the materials in Labatte v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Tenth Circuit Denies Utility/Pipeline Company En Banc Petition; Cert Petition Likely; Trump Admin. May Change Position on Case to Appease Pipeline Company
Here are the materials in Public Service Company of New Mexico v. Barboan:
Transwestern Pipeline Company Amicus Brief
Prior posts here.
Split Tenth Circuit Panel Rules HUD Illegally Recaptured NAHASDA Funds but Tribes Cannot Recover
Here is the opinion in the consolidated appeal captioned Modoc Lassen Indian Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
An excerpt from the lead opinion:
These consolidated appeals arise from a government agency’s decision to recapture, via administrative offset, funds that the agency allegedly overpaid to multiple grant recipients. The grant recipients brought suit in federal court, arguing in relevant part that the agency lacked authority to recapture the funds without first providing them with administrative hearings. The district court agreed and ordered the agency to repay the grant recipients. The agency now appeals that order.
If these underlying facts sound relatively straightforward, it’s because they are. But they nevertheless give rise to three legal questions that are decidedly less so: (1) did the agency recapture the funds pursuant to a statute or regulation that imposed a hearing requirement, thus rendering the recaptures illegal; (2) if the agency didn’t recapture the funds pursuant to such a statute or regulation, did it have authority to recapture the alleged overpayments at all; and (3) if not, must the agency reimburse the grant recipients for the amounts it illegally collected?
In answering the first of these three questions, the panel unanimously agrees that the agency didn’t recapture the funds pursuant to a statute or regulation that imposes a hearing requirement. Thus, we agree that the district court erred in ruling that the recipients were entitled to hearings before the agency could recapture the alleged overpayments.
But that’s where our unanimous agreement ends; the remaining questions divide the panel. Ultimately, two members of the panel agree that the agency lacked authority to recapture the funds via administrative offset. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order that characterizes the recaptures as illegal. Nevertheless, two other members of the panel agree that if the agency no longer has the recaptured funds in its possession, then the district court lacked authority to order the agency to repay the recipients. Thus, we reverse that portion of the district court’s order and remand for further factual findings.
Briefs:
Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to San Ildefonso Pueblo Land Rights
Federal Court Dismisses Slip and Fall Action against Fort Mojave Indian Tribe’s Casino Operations
Here are the materials in Ireson v. AVI Casino Enterprises (D. Nev.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.